1. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CHAIRMAN.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 14-5-1984 of the Federal Shariat Court; whereby the appeal of the petitioner from conviction and sentence under section 10 (2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
2. Ordinance (VII of 1979), was dismissed--the appeals of his co-convicts however were allowed.
3. The prosecution case in so far as the petitioner is concerned was that Mst. Kaniz Zohra who had earlier been abducted and subjected to Zina by several persons for several months ultimately came to the house of the petitioner where she stayed as maid-servant for six months. During this period she was subjected to Zina by him. She also conceived then from him. When the pregnancy was of 4 months both of them were arrested by the police during night the away from their abode in vagrancy. Ultimately their respective fathers intervened and she was accordingly taken home by her father. She was medically examined. Pregnancy was confirmed which resulted in abortion on medical grounds.
4. The learned trial Judge convicted the petitioner and to others under sections 16 and 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979). The appeals of others in entirety, as also of the petitioner regarding conviction under section 16 were allowed. But his conviction under section 10 (2) and sentence of five years' R.I., 30 stripes and Rs.5,000 as fine was maintained.
5. Therefore he has sought leave to appeal.
6. We having heard the learned counsel at some length do not find any justification for interference.
7. The stay of the prosecutrix in the house of the petitioner cannot be denied. It is during, that period that she became pregnant and ultimately she was found with him by the police at a place away from his house, where he could not explain their presence. There were several independent circumstances which supported the charge against him. The argument of the learned counsel that the father of the prosecutrix had made a bargain with an acquitted accused and also wanted to do the same in petitioner's case, is of no help to him. The petitioner's ease stands on different footing. There is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is allowed.