MUHAMMAD MAROOF vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had modified his conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. Originally convicted under Section 10(3) and Section 11, the Federal Shariat Court converted the convictions to Section 10(2) and Section 16, respectively, imposing concurrent sentences of seven years' rigorous imprisonment, whipping, and fines. The prosecution alleged the petitioner abducted the complainant's daughter, Mst. Shabana, under false pretenses and committed Zina-bil-Jabr. The petitioner contended that the victim was a consenting adult, highlighted the lack of investigation at the alleged crime scene, noted the absence of recoveries, and pointed to an eleven-day delay in filing the F.I.R. arising from strained relations. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-appraise the evidence on record, emphasizing the necessity of safe administration of criminal justice. The application for bail was not pressed, and the appeal was scheduled for a future hearing.
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to grant leave to appeal to re-appraise evidence in a criminal case involving the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Can a conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be converted to Section 10(2) based on the finding of consent?
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to challenge the judgment passed by the Federal Shariat Court whereby the conviction of the petitioner under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 was converted into conviction under section 10(2) of the Ordinance and also conviction under section 11 was converted into conviction under section 16 of the Ordinance and was sentenced to suffer seven years' R.I., 30 stripes of whipping and fine of Rs,10,000, in default to suffer R.I. For one year. Under section 16, he was sentenced to suffer 7 years'
2. R.I., 30 stripes of whipping and fine of Rs,10,000, in default to undergo 'RI for one year. The sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also maintained.
3. With this modification, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The case of the prosecution against the petiti9ner was that on 24-2-1990, while Ms. Shabana, the daughter of the complainant Imtiaz Nabi was going to attend her school, the petitioner, who happened to be husband of Gulshan Noorain, the elder sister of Shabana, brought Mst. Shabana allegedly 14 years old to a house at Kemari on the pretext that her mother was seriously ill. The house belonged to one Ms. Jamila, the step-sister of the petitioner where he kept Ms. Shabana and `Zinabil-Jabr' was committed by him for three nights. He thereafter brought her to her parents' house and went away.
4. The Doctor determined the age of Ms. Shabana as 18 years while Dr. Gul-e-Rana P.W.4 who examined her on 5-5-1990 found her to be not virgin and subjected to sexual intercourse for 5/6 times. The petitioner denied the charge and stated in his statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
5. That the case has been falsely registered at the instance of the complainant due to matrimonial differences between him and his wife.
6. The learned A.S.C. For the petitioner has taken us through evidence and the judgment passed by the learned Courts below and contended that Shabana being a major, has been held to be a consenting party with the petitioner. It was further pointed out that the police did not visit the place where Shabana was subjected to sexual intercourse. It was further contended that no recovery was made from the house at Kemari. The learned counsel also pointed out that the relationship between petitioner and the complainant were strained and there has been a delay of 11 days in filing the F.I.R. We grant leave to re-appraise the evidence on record for safe administration of criminal justice. The petitioner does not press application for bail. The appeal may be fixed for hearing in the next session.