MUHAMMAD AMIN vs The STATE
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, wherein the appellant challenged his conviction and sentence for abduction and Zina-bil-Jabar. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the charges against the appellant, particularly given contentions regarding the lack of independent corroboration of the victim's testimony and the impossibility of identifying the specific perpetrator of sexual intercourse. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the victim's testimony, which detailed being subjected to rape while in the detention of the accused, was credible and sufficiently corroborated by both medical evidence and the positive report of the Chemical Examiner. Furthermore, the appellant was apprehended alongside the abductee, providing strong circumstantial evidence. The judgment affirms the principle that where ocular testimony is consistent and supported by independent medical and forensic evidence, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Hudood laws, even in the absence of additional corroborative witnesses.
- Is the testimony of a victim in a Zina case acceptable without independent corroboration when supported by medical and forensic evidence?
- Does the apprehension of an accused in the company of an abductee constitute sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for abduction and Zina?
- Can a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be maintained when there are no visible marks of violence on the victim?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. JUSTICE PIR MUHAMMAD KARAM SHAH (MEMBER).----Through this appeal by leave of this Court learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The background of the case is that on 11th of December, 1989 at 11.05 a.m., a case under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) was registered on statement of Allah Ditta with Police Station Qaimpur, District Bahawalpur against Ghulam Sarwar and Muhammad Amin for committing Zina-bil-Jabar with Mst. Amir Mai (15/16). At the the of occurrence, Mst. Amir Mai went towards the fields to ease herself. She did not return home and as such, Allah Ditta, her father, Ghulam Rasool, Manzoor Ahmad and Ali Muhammad went out in her search. They followed the foot--prints of Mst. Amir Mai but they did not succeed to locate her. On the next day at about 10-00 a.m., they found Ghulam Sarwar and Muhammad Amin while coming alongwith Mst. Amir Mai in village Khanpur. On seeing them, the abductee raised alarm whereupon the P.Ws. Caught Ghulam Sarwar at the spot while Muhammad Amin ran away.
2. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused under section 11 of the Ordinance to imprisonment for life with ten lashes each and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each or in default thereof to undergo R.I. For to years. Similarly, they were convicted and sentenced under section 10(3) of the Ordinance to R.I. For ten years with fifteen lashes each and a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default to undergo to years' R.I. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C was extended to the convicts. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence through appeal. A Division Bench of the Federal Shariat Court vide its judgment dated 6th of February, 1992 altered the conviction from sections 11 and 10(3) to one under sections 16 and 10(2) of the Ordinance. The sentences awarded to them are as follows:------
(a) Five years' rigorous imprisonment, 10 stripes of whipping and a fine of Rs. 5,000 failure to pay which will entail sufferance of one year's rigorous imprisonment, for conviction under section 16 of the Ordinance; and
(b) Five years' rigorous imprisonment, thirty stripes of whipping and a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of payment thereof to further one years's rigorous imprisonment in regard to conviction under section 10(2) of the Ordinance.
3. Leave to appeal was granted on 25th of. August, 1992 with the following reasons:--- "Mr. Muhammad Munir Khan, the learned A.S.C. For the petitioner contended that as Amir Mai has been held to be a ' Zania' her evidence statement cannot be accepted without any independent corroboration which is lacking in this case. He further contended that according to the human behaviour one paramour of a woman would not like to share her with any other person and therefore, the entire prosecution story seems to be a fabricated one. It was also contended that as according to the prosecution Amir Mai had been in the company of Ghulam Sarwar and Muhammad Amin accused, by the report of the Chemical Examiner, it is not possible to establish which of the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her. The contentions raised require consideration and reappraisal of evidence for safe administration of criminal justice. Leave is granted. "
4. Learned counsel submits that there were no marks of violence having been found on the person of Mst. Amir Mai and as such, it could not be held that she was subjected to rape. According to the learned counsel, prosecution did not succeed to produce independent evidence to corroborate the tainted evidence of Allah Ditta. Learned State Counsel has opposed this appeal by supporting the judgment of Federal Shariat Court. He contends that report of the chemical examiner was found to be positive. That being so, ocular account was corroborated by medical evidence and the report ' of chemical examiner.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length and reading the entire record, we hold that prosecution did succeed in proving its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Muhammad Amin was apprehended alongwith the abductee. She has supported the case of the prosecution deposing that she was subjected to rape by the appellant during the period, she remained in their detention. The prosecution evidence is corroborated by medical evidence and report of the chemical examiner. Prosecution evidence does inspire confidence and is worth reliance. No case has been made out for interference by the learned counsel. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.