Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 605 2019 SLD 605 2019 MLD 225
Federal Shariat Court
Cr. P.S.L.A. No. 1/I of 2018, decision & hearing Dated:15-11-2018.
SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUSTICE SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Qazi Shams-ud-Din and Saeed Ahmad Awan
Respondent(s) by: Saeed Ahmed ShahWalayat Khan, Assistant Advocate General, KPK

SYED SAJJAD HAIDER NAQVI AND ANOTHERVSMST. SADIA BIBI AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979

Section: 7

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 417(2-A)

(a) Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979)--- ----S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Commission of offence of Qazf---Acquittal of accused---Appeal against acquittal---Special leave to appeal---Petitioners/complainants alleged that respondents had levelled allegations of zina against them, who were wedded couple, which caused mental torture/stress and agony to them---Respondents, in their statements alleged that petitioners/ complainants were continuing merital tie after execution of divorce deed---Said statements of the respondents were based on good faith, as after divorce deed spouses could not fulfil their matrimonial affairs as husband and wife---Under S.3 of Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, there must be specific allegations of "imputation of zina"---Petitioners had failed to prove the requisite ingredients of the "Offence of Qazf"---Statement of petitioner recorded during preliminary inquiry of the complaint case, had absolved the respondents of levelling allegations of adultery or zina---Statement by respondents during court proceedings that relations in between spouses/petitioners, after execution of divorce deed were against the principles of 'Shariah', by no stretch of imagination could constitute the offence of qazf---If the defence had taken a specific stance in their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C. even then it was duty of the prosecution to prove the entire case at their own strength---Even inconsistent pleas taken by accused would not give any benefit to the prosecution as it was settled duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt---Once reasonable doubt in the prosecution case was entertained its benefit must be extended to accused, not as a grace but as a right---Testimonies of all examined prosecution witnesses were full of contradictions with each other on material points---Trial Court rightly dismissed complaint of petitioners---Impugned passed by Trial Court was speaking order after thrashing grain from chaff and correctly reached at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge against the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492