Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1998 SCMR 1206

MULAZAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE

Citation1998 SCMR 1206
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No,23(S) of 1994 Criminal Appeal
Date1995-04-24
Judge(s)Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, Muhammad Munir Khan, Maulana Muhammad Taqi
ResultLeave refused

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.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch