ABDUL RASHID vs T1IE STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for committing zina-bil-jabr upon his own daughter. The trial court had sentenced him to 25 years rigorous imprisonment and 30 stripes of whipping, which was upheld by the Federal Shariat Court. The Supreme Court examined the record to determine if the findings of guilt regarding the incestuous act were correct. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the petitioner's act was abominable and fully justified the maximum punishment prescribed by law. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court.
- Is the maximum punishment under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 appropriate for the offence of zina-bil-jabr committed against one's own daughter?
- Does the Supreme Court have grounds to interfere with concurrent findings of guilt in a zina-bil-jabr case where the lower courts have properly evaluated the evidence?
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J.-The petitioner was convicted under section 10 (3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for committing zina-bil jabr upon his own daughter Mst. Shamshad and for this incestuous act sentenced to undergo R. I. For 25 years and also awarded the punishment of whipping numbering 30 stripes -by the learned Sessions Judge, Multan. His appeal before the Federal Shariat Court hav--ing failed, hence this petition for leave to appeal, which has been submitted through jail.
2. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is the maximum punishment prescribed under section 10
(3) of the Ordinance. We have, therefore, very carefully gone through the entire record with the assistance of Mr. Raashid Aziz, Additional Advocate-General (Punjab) with a view to satisfying our- -selves that the findings of the Courts below that the petitioner was indeed guilty of the depravity found against him was correct.
3. Unfortunately, we find no ground to differ with the findings of the learned Courts below that the petitioner did commit zina-bit-jabr. Upon his own daughter. For such an abominable act he deserved the maxi mum punishment prescribed there for by law.
4. This petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.