1986 PLP 7 (SCMR)
Mst. PARVEEN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 7 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Bench |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. PARVEEN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 7 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 7 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Bench bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 7 (SCMR) (Mst. PARVEEN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fazal Elahi Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M.M. Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th September, 1985.
- We have heard Mr. Fazal Ellahi Siddiqi, Advocate, in support of this petition but he has not been able to point out any error of law or violation of the principles for appraisement of evidence committed by the Federal Shariat Court. Hence no ground for interference has been made out.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 13‑5‑1985 of the Federal Shariat Court, Islamabad in Criminal Appeal No. 67/1 of 1985). ‑‑‑Art. 203‑F‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.11 & 10‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.343‑‑Leave to appeal against acquittal‑‑Federal Shariat Court after carefully perusing evidence came to conclusion that prosecution had failed to establish guilt of accused beyond doubt‑‑Petitioner unable to point out any error of law or violation of principles for appraisement of evidence committed by Federal Shariat Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Fazal Elahi Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. M.M. Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th September, 1985. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑Respondents Nos.1 and 2, namely, Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Hanif, who are brothers, were tried under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 343, P.P.C. lay the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, for having abducted Mst. Parveen Akhtar while she was going to the fields near her Dera to respond to the call of nature. Muhammad Hanif was also tried for committing Zina-bil‑Jabar ‑after her abduction under section 10(3) of the Ordinance:- The learned trial Judge, vide his judgment, dated 9‑4‑1985 found both the accused guilty under section 11 of the Ordinance and sentenced each of them for imprisonment for life and also imposed the sentence of whipping by inflicting 20 stripes on each accused. He also imposed on each of them a fine of Rs.3,000 or in default to undergo further one year's R.I. Muhammad Hanif was further found guilty under section 10(3) of the Ordinance and sentenced to 15 years' R.I. and 30 stripes. Both the convicts filed a joint appeal in the Federal Shariat Court to challenge their conviction and sentence. A Division Bench of the said learned Court after carefully perusing the evidence, came to the view that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants before it, accepted the appeal, set aside their conviction and sentence by its judgment, dated 13‑5‑1985. This is a petition for leave to question the acquittal of the respondents herein. We have heard Mr. Fazal Ellahi Siddiqi, Advocate, in support of this petition but he has not been able to point out any error of law or violation of the principles for appraisement of evidence committed by the Federal Shariat Court. Hence no ground for interference has been made out. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby. M.B.A. Petition dismissed.