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

Section: VIII,7,17

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: V,203(b)

Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979)-------S. 7---Commission of offence of qazf---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was charged for leveling allegation containing imputation of zina against the complainant while recording his statement in a civil suit---Perusal of the record revealed that the complainant during his cross examination in his criminal petition of Qazf, recorded on 16.05.2023 admitted that some quarrel happened between the appellant/accused and his counsel after recording of that piece of statement containing the disputed allegation of zina, on the basis of that statement subsequently the case of Qazf was filed---Such piece of statement had raised a question that some dispute did happened inside the Court, which had rendered some doubts regarding the recording of statement containing the allegation of zina amounting to Qazf, which apparently the Trial Court had ignored---Any statement which was a part of judicial proceedings containing signatures of the Presiding Officer i.e. the Court in that case, bore a presumption that the statement was recorded by the same PresidingOfficer/Court himself, unless proven otherwise, therefore, in that case the Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence of the parties available on record to evaluate that whether that statement containing the allegation of zina was recorded by the Court itself or not, or whether the Court was present at that time while the alleged statement was being recorded or not---Said aspects of the case not only were relevant but crucial in Hudood laws because such questions were pivotal to evaluate the authenticity of the evidence for proving the allegation against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Perusal of the record revealed that the Trial Court had failed to adopt the procedure mentioned in S.203-B, Cr.P.C, which the Court was bound to follow in the light of S.17 of the Ordinance, 1979---However, the Trial Court failed to understand that a complaint could not be declared as a sacrosanct document and its impact needed to be examined before granting permission---Thus, non-compliance of procedure as noted by the Trial Court had deprived the appellant…