MULAZAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Mulazam Hussain, challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence of Zina-bil-Jabr under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Shariat Court. The core legal questions were whether the delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.) vitiated the prosecution's case and whether medical evidence indicating only partial penetration was sufficient to sustain a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr. The Supreme Court held that the delay in the F.I.R. was reasonably explained and that the medical evidence of partial penetration was legally sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse under the Ordinance. The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts, noting that the prosecution witnesses and forensic evidence were credible and that the defence failed to rebut the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, establishing the principle that partial penetration is sufficient to constitute the offence of Zina-bil-Jabr under the relevant Ordinance.
- Is partial penetration sufficient to constitute the offence of Zina-bil-Jabr under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report automatically invalidate a prosecution case?
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---Mulazam Hussain petitioner was tried by Sessions Judge, Layyah, on the charge of commission of Zina-bil-Jabr with Mst. Rasheed Mai P.W.1 on 23-1-1990 in a sugar- cane field, who, vide judgment dated 10-10-1991 convicted him under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment and thirty stripes. The appeal filed by him against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Federal Shariat Court on 21-1-1992.
Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is a delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. And in view of the fact that vaginal canal of the victim admitted one finger with difficulty, it is at least doubtful that the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with Mst. Rasheed Mai.
3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. We do not agree with him.
The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has been explained reasonably. No doubt, the medical evidence shows that there was a possibility of partial penetration but it will not make much difference because even partial penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse punishable under section 10(3) of the Ordinance. Mst. Rasheed Mai and Pir Bakhsh (P.W.2) who was attracted to the spot on the alarm raised by Mst. Rasheed Mai, the Lady Doctor Yasmin Javed (P.W.6) and the report of the Chemical Examiner have been believed by the two Courts below. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut the prosecution case and the evidence produced by it. We do not see any infirmity in the prosecution case and in the impugned judgment as well.
4. For what has been said above, there being no merit in the Petition, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.