| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 1203 1991 SLD 1203 = 1991 PLD 39 |
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Appeals Nos.294/L of 1989, 424/1, 427/1, linked with Criminal Suo Moto No.18/L of 1990, decided on 3rd February, 1991.
Presented By: Before Tanzil-ur-Rehman, CJ. and Ibadat Yar Khan, J
S.D. Qureshi for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.294/L of 1989). Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.424/L of 1990). Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for Appellant (in Suo Motu No.18/L of 1990). Muhammad Akhtar Addl.A: G. Punjab and Muhammad Naeem for the State (in above appeals).
Criminal Appeals Nos.294/L of 1989, 424/1, 427/1, linked with Criminal Suo Moto No.18/L of 1990, decided on 3rd February, 1991.
Presented By: Before Tanzil-ur-Rehman, CJ. and Ibadat Yar Khan, J
S.D. Qureshi for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.294/L of 1989). Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.424/L of 1990). Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for Appellant (in Suo Motu No.18/L of 1990). Muhammad Akhtar Addl.A: G. Punjab and Muhammad Naeem for the State (in above appeals).
MUHAMMAD USMAN and 2 others--Appellants Versu-------s THE STATE--Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 340 , 342
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 340 & 342---Legislative history. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----- ----S. 340(2) [as amended by Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1985)]---Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. has introduced a new concept of the principle of criminal jurisprudence---Accused declining to make a statement on oath in disproof of charges and allegations against him---Court may draw an inference in favour of the prosecution and against the accused as the Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of each case. Islamic Jurisprudence---- ----Evidence---When the claimant/complainant has no or insufficient evidence in support of his claim/complaint, the defend ant/accused will be asked to take oath and if he talc- oath. claim/complaint against him will be dismissed and if he refuses to take oath, judgment will be given in favour of the claimant/complaint.--[Evidence]. Ibn Majah, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Ziyad, Al-Sunan, Karachi Vol. 11, p.43; Ibn Qudamah, Al-Mughni, Beirnt,Vol. XTI, p.127; Ibn Human, Fathal-Qadir, SuKur, Pak. Vo1.V1, p.159; Al-Husaini, Kifqyatul Akhyar, Beirut, Vol. 11, p.498 and Majallah al-Akham al--`Adliyah, S.1742 ref. Islamic Jurisprudence------ ----Crime and punishment---Evidence---Oath---Oath will not be demanded in cases liable to Hadd punishment which are pure rights of Allah and will be demanded in all cases liable to Taazir---Oath will also be demands in cases of theft for the stolen property and not for the arbitration of the hand of the offender. ref. Ibn al-Shahnah, Lisanul Hukkam, p.235; Radd-al-Muhtar Vol. III, p.345 Islamic Jurisprudence---- ----Evidence---Oath to the defendant/accused will be administered by the Court on demand of the claimant/complainant---Conditions. The oath to the defendant/accused will be administered by the Court on demand of the claimant/complainant with the following conditions:-- The claim/complaint is valid because no oath will be demanded on a void claim; the defendant/accused refuses the claim/complaint because oath will not be demanded in case he admits the right or confesses the charge; the claim/complaint relates to the rights of Allah…