| Case ID |
0fb55342-58ed-45a3-954d-b035d566751f |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No.SC-28 of 2000 |
| Decision Date |
May 08, 2001 |
| Hearing Date |
May 08, 2001 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction of Abdul Majeed under Section 450 of the Penal Code and Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The court confirmed the 10-year Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000 under Section 450. Additionally, under Section 10(3), Abdul Majeed was sentenced to 25 years Rigorous Imprisonment with thirty stripes; however, the sentence of whipping was set aside in accordance with the Abolition of Punishment of Whipping Act, 1996. The conviction was maintained based on substantial evidence, including medical and witness testimonies, while dismissing the appellant's appeals regarding the competency of the child witness and the validity of the whipping sentence. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Abdul Majeed vs The State, adjudicated in the Lahore High Court on May 8, 2001, the appellant, Abdul Majeed, faced severe charges under Section 450 of the Penal Code and Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The case, cited as 2002 SLD 849 and 2002 PCRLJ 41, revolved around the grave allegation of Zina-bil-Jabr committed by Abdul Majeed against his minor daughter, leading to charges of sexual assault and related offences.
The prosecution presented a robust case anchored by compelling medical evidence and testimonies from natural witnesses, including the victim's parents, who reported witnessing the incident. Medical examinations by Dr. Rizwana Naz provided concrete evidence of the assault, corroborated by forensic findings from the Chemical Examiner. The court meticulously evaluated the competency of a child witness, adhering to the standards set by Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), which emphasizes the court's discretion in assessing a witness's ability to comprehend and respond logically without necessitating written Q&A formats.
Abdul Majeed's defense challenged the validity of the whipping sentence and questioned the reliability of the child witness. However, the judiciary found the prosecution's evidence incontrovertible, dismissing the defense's arguments as lacking substantial merit. The court upheld the convictions, imposing a 10-year Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine under Section 450, and a 25-year sentence under Section 10(3), while nullifying the whipping punishment in compliance with the Abolition of Punishment of Whipping Act, 1996.
The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the rights of vulnerable victims and ensuring that justice is served through thorough examination of evidence and adherence to legal precedents. Key legal references cited in the judgment include pivotal cases such as Karu Singh and others v. Emperor AIR 1942 Pat. 159 and Qadeer Hussain v. State 1995 PCr.LJ 803, reinforcing the court's stance on witness competency and the irrelevance of abolished punishments. This case serves as a significant precedent in criminal jurisprudence, highlighting the balance between upholding stringent legal standards and ensuring humane treatment within the justice system. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
The State,
Abdul Majeed
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J
|
| Lawyers |
A.R. Tayyab,
Ghazanfar Ali
|
| Petitioners |
ABDUL MAJEED
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE
|
| Citations |
2002 SLD 849,
2002 PCRLJ 41
|
| Other Citations |
Karu Singh and others v. Emperor AIR 1942 Pat. 159,
Lakhan Singh v. Emperor AIR 1942 Pat. 183,
State of Orissa v. Machindra Majhi and another AIR 1964 Orissa 100,
Qadeer Hussain v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 788,
Qadeer Hussain v. State 1995 PCr.LJ 803,
Umar Jahan v. State 1979 SCMR 186
|
| Laws Involved |
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979),
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
|
| Sections |
Art. 3,
S.10(3),
S.450
|