MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Mansha against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which maintained his conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment and thirty stripes, while acquitting him under section 16 of the same Ordinance. The core legal question revolves around whether the testimony of the prosecutrix, standing alone, was appraised correctly and in accordance with established judicial principles for the safe administration of justice, particularly given contentions regarding medical corroboration and contradictions in evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the appraisal of evidence and the reliability of the prosecutrix's statement require detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that where a conviction rests on the testimony of a single witness, the evidence must be meticulously scrutinized to ensure it withstands tests of consistency and reliability for safe administration of criminal justice.
- Whether a conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 can be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix?
- Does the medical evidence provide necessary corroboration in cases involving a married woman of questionable repute?
- Whether contradictions and improbabilities in the statement of a prime witness warrant interference with concurrent findings of lower courts?
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.--- The petitioner was tried alongwith his co-accused Raja, Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Irshad. He was convicted under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) and sentenced to 7 years' R.I. and thirty stripes. He was, however, acquitted for the offence under section 16 of the Ordinance. As regards other accused, Raja was convicted under section 16 of the Ordinance and was sentenced to 4 years' R.I. with five stripes and a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof to further undergo rigourous imprisonment of six months; while Muhammad Ali and Irshad were acquitted.
On appeal, conviction and sentence of both the convicts was maintained vide judgment dated 12-4-1995. Only Muhammad Mansha has filed this petition for leave to appeal and in support his learned counsel argued that the conviction is based on the testimony of Mst. Nasrin P.W.6 alone and the medical evidence cannot provide corroboration, the victim being married woman, and even otherwise is not a woman of good repute. He took us through her evidence in support of the plea that implicit faith cannot be placed on her testimony in view of the contradictions and improbabilities appearing in her statement. Learned Judge of the Federal Shariat Court has observed that the testimony of Mst. Nasrin P.W.6 has stood the test of cross-examination and remained unshattered.
3. The question whether the evidence on record, and in particular the statement of Mst. Nasrin has been appraised correctly and in accordance with the principles enunciated by the superior Courts for safe administration of justice in criminal cases requires examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted.
N.H.Q./M-127/S Leave granted.