1990 PLP 140 (SCMR)
MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 140 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Bench |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Pir Muhammad Karam Shah |
| Parties | MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 140 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 140 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Bench bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Pir Muhammad Karam Shah.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 140 (SCMR) (MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 21st June, 1989.
- Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Federal Shariat Court dated 8‑7‑1986 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 31/L of 1986). (a) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.10(3)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.323‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203‑D‑‑‑Accused had already served his sentence and had been released from Jail at the time of hearing of appeal but sentence of stripes was yet to be undergone‑‑‑Evidence was however re‑appraised in the light of leave granting order. (b) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 10 (3)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.323‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203‑D‑‑Evidence, appraisal of ‑‑‑Prosecutrix did not identify accused at the time of occurrence‑‑‑Identity of accused was disclosed by tracker‑‑‑Accused had a subsisting enmity with maternal uncle of prosecutrix‑‑‑Prosecutrix was a married lady ‑‑‑Prosecutrix stated at the trial that she had received extensive injuries on her body but doctor found none‑‑‑Statement of prosecutrix herself, held, had made case against accused doubtful‑‑‑Conviction and sentence thus were set aside. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.10(3)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.323‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203‑D‑‑‑Accused had already served his sentence and had been released from Jail at the time of hearing of appeal but sentence of stripes was yet to be undergone‑‑‑Evidence was however re‑appraised in the light of leave granting order. (b) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 10 (3)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.323‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203‑D‑‑Evidence, appraisal of ‑‑‑Prosecutrix did not identify accused at the time of occurrence‑‑‑Identity of accused was disclosed by tracker‑‑‑Accused had a subsisting enmity with maternal uncle of prosecutrix‑‑‑Prosecutrix was a married lady ‑‑‑Prosecutrix stated at the trial that she had received extensive injuries on her body but doctor found none‑‑‑Statement of prosecutrix herself, held, had made case against accused doubtful‑‑‑Conviction and sentence thus were set aside. Ch. Ghulam Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab for the State. Date of hearing: 21st June, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑Manzoor Hussain was granted leave to appeal on a petition filed from jail against his conviction and sentence under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and under section 323/34, P.P.C.;,‑T~..
2. At the hearing of the appeal we have been informed that the appellant has already served his sentence and has been released from Jail. However, the sentence of thirty stripes awarded by the Federal Shariat Court has yet to be undergone. This has necessitated the reappraisement of the evidence in the light of the leave granting order.
3. After going through the statement of the prosecutrix, we find that she has admitted that at the time of the occurrence she was unable to identify the appellant. It was also admitted by her that the identity of the appellant was disclosed by the tracker who examined the foot‑prints of the two accused found at the spot. It was also admitted by her that the appellant had a subsisting enmity with her maternal uncle Mohsin. Besides, the prosecutrix is a married lady. She stated at the trial having received extensive injuries on her body but the Doctor found none. All these facts appearing in the statement of the prosecutrix herself make the case against the appellant doubtful. Hence the appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellant has already undergone o'‑the sentence and has since been released. Therefore, there will now be no occasion to inflict the stripes. MA.K./M‑1080/S Appeal accepted.