MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and Section 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant, having already served his term of imprisonment, challenged the remaining sentence of thirty stripes. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained given the evidentiary weaknesses in the prosecution's case. Upon reappraising the evidence, the Supreme Court noted significant contradictions: the prosecutrix admitted an inability to identify the appellant at the time of the occurrence, relying instead on a tracker's identification of footprints. Furthermore, the prosecutrix admitted to a subsisting enmity between the appellant and her maternal uncle, and her claims of receiving extensive injuries were contradicted by medical evidence. Finding the prosecution's case inherently doubtful, the Court held that the conviction could not be maintained. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the requirement to undergo the sentence of stripes was rendered moot as the appellant had already been released.
- Does the absence of medical evidence corroborating alleged injuries undermine the credibility of a prosecutrix's testimony in a Zina case?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecutrix admits an inability to identify the accused at the time of the occurrence?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution's case relies on disputed footprint identification and admits to a motive of enmity?
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' 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.
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 prosccutrix 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 the sentence and has since been released. Therefore, there will now be no occasion to inflict the stripes.