HIRA BIBI

2020-LLB (SS)-027
Mushtaq Ahmad vs the state and others
• Briefly stated facts of the case as stated in the FIR and recorded on
the statements of complainant are that he was present at his home
on April 2, 2006 about 6:00 p.m., when Ghulam Shabbir visited him.
They both went to his father-in-law's Dera. They heard a child crying
as they got closer to the baithak.
• After registration of the case and necessary investigation was
conducted by Khadim Hussain SI. The learned trial court charged the
accused/ respondent under section 12 of the Offence of Zina
(Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 as well as under section
377 of Pakistan Penal Code. The accused was not satisfied and
claimed trial.
Issue
Whether the accused was duly acquitted by the trial court
against section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of
Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and under section 377 of Pakistan
Penal Code?

Rule Applied
Section 12 of the Offence of Zina Ordinance, 1979 and
under section 377 of Pakistan Penal Code
Decision…………..?
SARFRAZ AHMAD Vs The STATE [2016
S C M R 1635]
• facts
• The facts of the given case are that the prosecution claims that Sarfraz
Ahmed, the petitioner kidnapped Ms. Fatima, a young girl of around
three and a half years old, engaged in sexual misconduct with her and
then killed her.
• According to the petitioner, some members of the complainant party w
itnessed him reportedly removing the deceased's body from a Baithak
and throwing it into a plot.
Issues
The main issue in this case is whether Petitioner was duly convicted
under section 12 and 7 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood
Ordinance, 1979) or whether the judgement of the trial court was
sustainable or not?

Rule Applied
Sections 302(b) and 377 of the Penal Code as well as sections 12 and 7
of the Offence of Zina.

Decision………???
Mst. Irshad Bibi Vs Nisar Ahmad and 5
others [2014 Y L R 1089]
• facts
• The complainant Irshad Ahmad in his complaint alleged that at 06.00 am. He along with his mother
Hajran Bibi and his sister Irshad Bibi were present in their house when accused Mumtaz Begum,
Yasmin, Nasreen came to their house and took his sister Irshad Bibi out of.
• They waited for Irshad Bibi for a very long time but she did not turn up. He visited Nasreen and
Yasmin's home and asked about his sister Irshad Bibi. He was informed by Nasreen and Yasmin that
Irshad Bibi had returned to her home after taking a break.
• In the Mohallah, he looked for his sister but he could not find her. According to Muhammad Afzal
PW and Muhammad Asghar Butt, Irshad Bibi was standing alongside Nasreen, Mumtaz, and Yasmin
on the road when Nasreen, Gulzar, and Zulfiqar accused arrived in a car. the accused stopped the
car near Irshad Bibi, pushed her inside, and then Nareen and the others returned to their homes.
• When he returned to Nasreen's and other's homes, they were not there. He inspected the iron box
because he had a suspicion and discovered that six golden bangles weighing six tolas, a necklace
weighing four tolas, a pair of gold rings weighing one and a half tolas, three ladies rings worth one
tola and Rs. 20,000 in cash were stolen. These items were taken by Nasreen and others.
• He said that the accused kidnapped his sister Irshad Bibi for "Zina-Haram-Kari" reasons.
Issue
The main issue in the present case was that whether the
accused validly acquitted from sections 10(3) and 11 of the
Offence of Zina of 1979 or not?

Rule Applied
Sections 2, 10(3) and 11 of the Offence of Zina Ordinance 1979

Decision…….????