1998 PLP 1206 (SCMR)
MULAZAM HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1206 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, Mir Hazar Khan Khoso and Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ |
| Parties | MULAZAM HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1206 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1206 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, Mir Hazar Khan Khoso and Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1206 (SCMR) (MULAZAM HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. M. Naeem, Advocate for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 24th April, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Shariat Court dated 21‑1‑1992 passed in Criminal Appeal No.227/I of 1991). ‑‑‑‑S. 10(3)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203‑F(2B)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Delay in lodging the F.I.R. had been reasonably explained‑‑‑Partial penetration was sufficient to constitute the offence of Zina‑bil‑Jabr‑‑‑Prosecution evidence had been believed by the two Courts below and the defence evidence was not strong enough to rebut the same‑‑‑Prosecution case as well as the impugned judgment did not suffer from any infirmity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.
Mulazam Hussain petitioner was tried by Sessions Judge, Layyah, on the charge of commission of Zina-bil-Jabr with Mst. Rasheed Mai P.W.1 on 23-1-1990 in a sugar-cane field, who, vide judgment dated 10-10-1991 convicted him under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as, the Ordinance) and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment and thirty stripes. The appeal filed by him against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Federal Shariat Court on 21-1-1992. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is a delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. and in view of the fact that vaginal canal of the victim admitted one finger with difficulty, it is at least doubtful that the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with Mst. Rasheed Mai.
3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. We do not agree with him. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained reasonably. No doubt, the medical evidence shows that there was a possibility of partial penetration but it will not make much difference because even partial penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse punishable under section 10(3) of the Ordinance. Mst. Rasheed Mai and Pir Bakhsh (P.W.2) who was attracted to the spot on the alarm raised by Mst. Rasheed Mai, the Lady Doctor Yasmin Javed (P.W.6) and the report of the Chemical Examiner have been believed by the two Courts below. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut the prosecution case and the evidence produced by it. We do not see any infirmity in the prosecution case and in the impugned judgment as well.
4. For what has been said above, there being no merit in the Petition, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-3070/S Leave refused.