Mst. NADIA Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a criminal petition seeking the quashing of proceedings pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, against the applicant, Mst. Nadia, who was charged with offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the evidence—specifically, the applicant being found in the company of an alleged procurer and a medical report indicating she was not a virgin—was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that the proceedings must be quashed, as the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case. The Court reasoned that mere association with an alleged procurer does not constitute an offence, and an admission made to the police by a co-accused is inadmissible. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that a medical finding of non-virginity, in isolation, cannot serve as evidence to justify a conviction for Zina, and continuing proceedings where there is no possibility of conviction constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
- Can a medical report indicating non-virginity, in isolation, serve as sufficient evidence to justify a conviction for Zina?
- Is an admission made to the police by a co-accused admissible as evidence against an applicant?
- Does mere association with a person alleged to be involved in prostitution constitute an offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- When can criminal proceedings be quashed on the basis that there is no possibility of conviction?
- Section 13, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979
- Section 14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979
- Section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Through present miscellaneous application the proceedings in criminal case for offence under section 13, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 pending before 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Malir against applicant Nadia are sought to be quashed. Before approaching this Court the applicant made an attempt for her acquittal under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court but her application was dismissed on 4‑2‑2003.
2. The facts of the case are that on 11‑1‑2001, A.S.‑I. Aijaz Rajput Incharge Al‑Asif Police Station Gulzar Hijri was patrolling the area together with HC Sarfraz, HC Mumtaz Ali and PC Allah Dino. At Indus Plaza he received spy information that three persons namely Khan Muhammad, Essa and Abdullah were engaged in supplying the girls for Zina and as such were running prostitution business. Even at that time those persons were to take one lady to Chappal Plaza for supplying to customers.
3. After receiving the information when police group went at the ground behind Indus Plaza at about 7‑00 p.m. they found three persons bringing one lady. On the pointation of informer the police men intercepted these persons and managed to capture them one male and one lady whereas two persons succeeded in slipping away from there. On inquiries lady introduced herself as Nadia daughter of Fateh Muhammad and man disclosed his name as Khan Muhammad son of Rauf. It is said that Khan Muhammad admitted before police that they were taking Nadia for a customer at Chappal Plaza. Both of captives were then arrested under the Mashirnama and brought at Gulzar Hijri Police Station where A.S.‑I. Aijaz registered the case against them and two others who, as informed by Khan Muhammad were Essa and Abdullah, for offence under sections 13, 14 and 18 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
4. After the investigation Nadia and Khan Muhammad were sent for trial showing Essa and Abdullah, absconders. The case was assigned to 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Malir before whom an attempt made by Nadia for her acquittal under section 265‑K could not succeed. After that present application was filed.
5. Notice was issued to A.‑G. for hearing and deciding the matter on Katcha Peshi stage. Today arguments have been heard. It has been contended by Mr. S. Jawaid Haider Kazmi learned Advocate for the applicant that the total evidence in this case against the applicant Nadia is that she was seen going in company of Khan Muhammad who is alleged to have been running prostitution business and that Khan Muhammad admitted before police that he was taking Nadia for a customer which itself does not constitute any offence therefore, there is no possibility of conviction of applicant for any offence. Learned State Counsel opposed the application arguing that not only the applicant was going with Khan Muhammad who is perfectly stranger to her but she on medical checking was found not to be virgin which fact can justify, inference that she had been involved in activities of Zina.
6. Undisputedly the only evidence against the applicant Nadia is that she was going with Khan Muhammad a person allegedly involved in prostitution business, and Khan Muhammad admitted before police that he was taking Nadia for supplying to their customer. Since Nadia was simply seen in company of Khan Muhammad that fact cannot override the presumption of innocence which is fundamental principle of criminal justice. If Khan Muhammad made some admission before police implicating Nadia that is not the evidence admissible under the law. Further, if Nadia was not found to be virgin in the result of medical check up that by itself cannot be used as evidence justifying her conviction in this case. Thus, in present case it can safely be said that there is no possibility of the conviction of the applicant, therefore proceedings against her are liable to be quashed being abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the proceedings against her before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Malir in the case registered as Crime No. 12 of 2001 at Police Station Gulzar Hijri under sections 13, 14 and 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 are quashed.
7. H.B.T./N‑7/k Proceedings quashed.