2021 Y L R 1243
(a) Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979)---
----S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 367---Commission of offence of Qazf---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Tazkiyah al-Shuhood in the witnesses---Language and contents of judgment---Scope---Accused was charged for levelling allegation containing imputation of zina against the complainant---Record showed that the Trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground of absence of Tazkiyah al-Shuhood in the witnesses of the prosecution declaring it as a mandatory provision in any case of Hadd, however, the judgment was silent about the fact as to how the Trial Court reached to the conclusion that Tazkiyah al-Shuhood was missing from the prosecution witnesses---Correctly, the assessment of Tazkiyah al-Shuhood of the prosecution witnesses was very relevant and important in cases of Hadd, but at the same time, the Trial Court was supposed to give plausible and cogent reasons for declaring any witness, who did not fulfil the standards of Tazkiyah al-Shudood---Circumstances established that the impugned judgment did not fulfil the mandatory requirements of S.367, Cr.P.C., thus was not sustainable---Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and case was remanded to the Trial Court for re-writing of judgment by fully adhering to mandatory provisions contained in S.367, Cr.P.C.
(b) Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979)---
----S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 367---Commission of offence of Qazf---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Delay of about one month in lodging the FIR---Effect---Language and contents of judgment---Scope---Accused was charged for levelling allegation containing imputation of zina against the complainant---Record showed that report had been lodged after a delay of about one month---Trial Court observed that it was enough time for deliberation and consultation on the part of the complainant for false implication of the accused---Said approach of the Trial Court which conducted the trial of Qazf was utterly misplaced and wrong due to the nature of the alleged offence---Unlike other criminal cases, in Qazf the honour, reputation, respect, social norms and values associated with the victim and her whole family were deeply involved, hence, delay in filing complaint not only natural but permissible in Islam---Impugned judgment not fulfilling the mandatory requirements of S.367, Cr.P.C., thus, was not sustainable---Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for re-writing of judgment by fully adhering to mandatory provisions contained in S.367, Cr.P.C.
(c) Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979)---
----S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 367---Commission of offence of Qazf---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Medical evidence---Language and contents of judgment---Scope---Accused was charged for levelling allegation containing imputation of zina against the complainant---In the present case, the Trial Court ignored the negative pregnancy test, which was the most relevant medical report in such case---Contents of the ultrasound report were clearly in favour of the claim of complainant/appellant showing her not pregnant---Trial Court disregarded the ultrasound report for containing a typographical error in date written on it---Circumstances established that the impugned judgment did not fulfill the mandatory requirements of S.367, Cr.P.C., thus, was not sustainable---Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for re-writing of judgment by fully adhering to mandatory provisions contained in S.367, Cr.P.C.
(d) Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979)---
----S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 367---Commission of offence of Qazf---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Language and contents of judgment---Scope---Accused was charged for levelling allegation containing imputation of zina against the complainant---Record showed that the Trial Court wrongly presumed that father-in-law of the complainant/ appellant was also the husband of daughter of accused, whereas on the contrary the contents of the statements of the witnesses and the cross-examinations revealed that the daughter of accused was the step-mother of the complainant/appellant---Due to said mis-reading of evidence, the reaching of Trial Court at a wrong conclusion was obvious---Trial Court had also completely ignored the evidence of SHO, who in his statement clearly stated that the accused came to him in Police Station on 05.03.2015, first he gave an application against complainant containing allegation of zina and doing abortion---Said application was returned to him because it contained the allegation of zina---Said statement was discussed by the Trial Court but no inference was drawn from it, the Trial Court committed non-reading of the material evidence of the case by just ignoring the same---Record transpired that the impugned judgment was violative of the mandatory provisions contained in S.367, Cr.P.C., because the Trial Court utterly failed to formulate the points for determination as required by that section and decision thereon with reasons---Circumstances established that the impugned judgment not fulfilling the mandatory requirements of S.367, Cr.P.C., thus was not sustainable---Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for re-writing of judgment by fully adhering to mandatory provisions contained in S.367 Cr.P.C.
0 Comments