P L D 1984 Federal Shariat Court 135 (PLP)
MUSHTAQ AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1984 Federal Shariat Court 135 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1984 Federal Shariat Court 135 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1984 Federal Shariat Court 135 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1984 Federal Shariat Court 135 (PLP) (MUSHTAQ AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi for Appellants.
- Date of hearing : 10th April, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII d 1979) ‑ S. 5‑krimioal Procedure Code {V of 1898), S. 242‑Plea of guilty Retraction of‑Accused retracting confession made before trial Court Trial Court to retry accused according to law after ignoring confession Sentence passed despite retraction, held, invalid in law. (b)Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance) (VII of 1979)‑ ‑‑ Ss. 5, 9 (1) & (3 ‑Criminal Procedure Code (Y of 1898), .Ss. 242 & 412‑‑Making of confession not admitted by accused‑Appeal, held, lies before Court to determine question whether confession had be‑en made by accused or nut‑‑Offender of Zina or Zina‑bil‑Jabr proved only by confession of accused‑Hadd or such part of same as yet to be enforced shall not be enforced, when accused retracted his confession before Hadd or such part is enforced‑Appeal competent in circumstances and section 412, Cr. P. C. not a bar. Munawar A. Mina, A: G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Aftab Hussain, C. J.‑This is an appeal against the order of Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Khoso, Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta, by which he convicted both the appellants under section 5 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced them to Hadd punishment of whipping numbering 100 stripes each. This order was passed on a plea of guilty said to have been taken by both the appellants before tie learned Additional Sessions Judge.
2. Before the above order was recorded, both the appellants submitted petitions urging that their answer in the affirmative was given on account of misunderstanding and they did not want to make any confession. On the other hand, they would like that the case be retried and they may be defended through a counsel. This was clearly a retraction of the confessions made before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He should, therefore, have' retried the appellants according to law after ignoring their confessions. His order passed despite this retraction is invalid in law.
3. A question arises in this case about the competence of appeal. Section 412, Cr. P. C. prohibits the filing of an appeal in a case where the conviction is based upon confession. It could follow that if making of the confession is not admitted, the appeal may he before the Court to determine the question whether the confession had been made by the appellants or not Section 9(1) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 197 provides that in a case in which the offence of Zina or Zina‑bil‑Jabr is proved only by the confession of the convict. Hadd, or such part of it as is g yet to be enforced, shall not be enforced if the convict retracts his confession before the Hadd or such part is enforced. Subsection (3) provides that r such case the Court may order retrial. 4: Obviously, in view of this 'provision such an appeal would b competent at the instance of a person who has been convicted and awarded Hadd sentence by the Court and at the time of appeal or before the filing of the appeal he retracts his confession. We, therefore, hold that section 412 is not a bar to the filing of an appeal on the ground of retraction o confession. S. As a result of the above discussion we have no option but to set aside the order of conviction and sentence of the appellants and remand the case for retrial. M. A. K. Case remanded.