Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 3767 = 1984 SLD 3767 = 1984 PLJ 334
Shariat Court (AJ&K)
, Criminal Reference No. 0.84, .insvcu-J ?n iK,<-
Presented By: ABDUL GHAFOOR
Mr. Muhammad Nisar Mirza, Additional Advocate General for State. Mr. Muhammad Yunus Surkbari, Advocate for
Respondent. Date of institution    19-4-1984.

THE STATE— Petition;.-!- BASHARAT AHMAD and Other.i— Respondent-

Law:

Section:

-)9X4. Islamic Law &amp; Jurisprudence &mdash; -- Women witnesses ---- Evidence of &mdash; Statement &mdash; Recording ot-~ Procedure for &mdash; Held : Both women witnesse&gt; to remain present before Court at time of recording of statem nt and their statements to be recorded one by one according to law and practice &laquo;n vogue for recording statements- Woman witness making statement stating something not true (account of matter in dispute) according to other women witness hearing such statement&mdash; -Helu : Such other women to be at liberty to help her to remember correct version [P, ^38&#39;M Holy Quran Sura-e-Baqaia/i (verse 282) rel Al-Mabsoot (vol. \l p. 142} Imam Surkhasi , Al-ta/iavi by Imam Tahavi, Durre Mukhtar (Vol IV, p. 576) by Sh. Muhammad Abedeen ; .41 Aabhah (Vol. I p. 206) ; Fateh-ur-Rehmani (p. 304) by Syed Sabat Abi Al-Mdani ; Ahkamul Qur&#39;an (Vol. 1, p. 508) by Maulana Ashraf AH Thanvi ; Tafseer Al-Muragtti (Vol 111) by Ahmed Mustafa Al-Muraghi ; Tafseer Minari (Vol. Ill) by Muhammad Rashid Raza Misri &amp; Tafseer \fauloom-ul-Q man (Vol. II. p. 377) by Maulana Muhammad AH Siddiqui ref. JUDGMENT This is a reference made by District Criminal Court Mifpur and it arises out of the following circumstances, &nbsp; 2.A criminal case titled&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ;Sfate v, Bashfr Ahmad and others &#39;, where- in the respondents are facing trial under Sections 14/15 of the Islamic Penal Laws Act of 1974, is pending in the District Criminal Court Mirpur. The prosecution has cited, among others, two women witnesses, namely, Khateeja Begum and Makhtool Begum. On 22nd of January, 1984, both of the above named women witnesses were present and the public prosecutor requested the Court to record the statement of one of the aforesaid witnesses but the learned Counsel for the defence raised an objection and stated that both the women witnesses are required to be examined together in accordance with Islami Shariat. The Court heard the learned counsel&nbsp; for the parties but could not return a unanimous verdict.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp; learned&nbsp; Sessions Judge agreed&nbsp; with the Public Prosecutor and favoured&nbsp; the examination of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register