MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under the Offence of Zina-bil-Jabr (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, where the appellant challenged his conviction and four-year sentence for attempting to commit Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of attempted Zina-bil-Jabr beyond reasonable doubt and whether the appellant's defense of false implication due to a financial dispute was credible. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution's evidence, consisting of the victim's testimony corroborated by eyewitnesses, was consistent and reliable, whereas the appellant's defense was an unsubstantiated afterthought lacking specific details regarding the alleged financial transaction or the purported physical altercation. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction, affirming that the prosecution had met its burden of proof. However, the court exercised judicial discretion to slightly reduce the sentence from four years to three years of rigorous imprisonment, aiming to provide the appellant an opportunity for rehabilitation, while maintaining the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Is a defense plea of false implication credible when the accused fails to provide specific details regarding the alleged motive for such implication?
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence for an offence under the Offence of Zina-bil-Jabr (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 if it deems the original sentence excessive?
- Does the failure of an accused to examine himself as a witness under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 weaken their defense?
- Section 18, Offence of Zina-bil-Jabr (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina-bil-Jabr (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. Appellant, Muhammad Ramzan was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran, in a Hudood case on the charge of having attempted to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with Mst. Perveen Bibi. He denied the charge, therefore, he was tried and finally found guilty and was therefore, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 4 years R.I. for the offence under section 18 read with section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina -bil-Jabr (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The appellant has challenged the said judgment through the Jail Superintendent. The appellant did not engage his private counsel therefore, the office appointed a counsel to represent him, on the orders of the Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts of the case in short are that appellant Muhammad Ramzan forcibly removed Shalwar of Mst. Perveen Bibi, in attempt to commit Zina with her, when Mst. Perveen Bibi had gone inside the crop of Jawar to ease herself, on 28-6-1999 at about 11-00 a.m. Appellant Muhammad Ramzan had also tried to stop Mst. Perveen Bibi from raising cries by putting his hand over her mouth. However on commotion, P.W. Muhammad Iqbal a neighbour and a relation of Mst. Perveen Bibi, alongwith her father P.W. Muhammad Sharif were attracted, who reached at the place of occurrence. They saw the accused appellant Muhammad Ramzan, who fled away.on seeing the witnesses, and thus, the attempt to commit the offence did not materialize. Age of Mst. Perveen Bibi was about 14/15 years, while accused appellant Muhammad Ramzan was about 22/23 years old on the date of occurrence. During the trial Mst. Perveen Bibi on whose statement the F.I.R. was registered, stated the facts as disclosed above, while P.W. Muhammad Sharif the father of the victim and P.W. Muhammad Iqbal her neighbour and Caste fellow, corroborated the statement of victim girl. In addition, the prosecution examined the formal witnesses P.W. Abdul Ghafar, Mouharrer, Head Constable of Police Station lalla Arrain and A.S.I.P. Abdul Shakoor. They supported the fact that they had received the complaint/statement of the victim recorded by A.S.I.P. Abdul Shakoor and had incorporated the same as F.I.R. A.S.I.P., Abdul Shakoor produced the statement of the victim. These two witnesses were not cross-examined by the defence.
4. The appellant Muhammad Ramzan in his defence took a plea that the father of Mst. Perveen Bibi had borrowed some money from him, and when the appellant had demanded it back, the victim's father Muhammad Sharif had given him a severe beating which put him in a precarious condition, and in order to save himself, the victim's father concocted and manufactured this false case. His claim was that no such occurrence had ever taken place.
5. In .his statement under section 342, strangely the appellant did not take same stance as regard his beating but simply stated that Muhammad Sharif borrowed money from him which when demanded was not returned and that therefore, he, was falsely involved in this case concocted and that the appellant was innocent. He however, neither examined himself as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any witness in his defence evidence. After hearing the learned counsel at length, and going through the entire record. I found that the defence put forward by the appellant was an afterthought. He did not even plead as to how much money was paid to Muhammad Sharif by him, nor did he mention the details of any transaction in which such money was borrowed. He did not even plead the date and time of the period when such money was borrowed or was due to be paid to him. Thus, it was a lame attempt by appellant to create a false defence.
6. The evidence of the victim has been corroborated by the evidence of the P.Ws. Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Sharif who were not put any suggestion to point out as to what was nature of transaction that took place between the appellant and Muhammad Sharif and as to what was the quantum of amount. To be exact, no suggestion that Muhammad Sharif had borrowed any money from the appellant was put in cross-examination to P.W. Muhammad Iqbal. Muhammad Sharif, was suggested in cross-examination that appellant was given physical beating by Muhammad Sharif and that he was put in a precarious condition due to such beating. This suggestion was denied. The appellant had neither reported the matter to police or anybody else, although his case was that he was in a dangerous position by beating. Therefore, this stance of the appellant did not get any support from the record of the case. Nor appears believable as a result, I found there was no force in any of the contentions of the appellant and that he was rightly convicted, by the trial Judge.
7. As regards the sentence I find that in order to give the appellant a chance to improve and live the life of a useful citizen in future, the sentence be slightly reduced. Consequently, the sentence of imprisonment in my view to the extent of 3 years R.I. will meet the ends of justice.
8. The appeal is dismissed and the sentence is reduced to 3 years R.I. Benefit of section 382-B already granted to him by trial Court remains available to him.
9. H.B.T./38/FSC Sentence reduced.