PESHAWAR, April 21: As some lawyers of Kohat district are finalising an appeal on behalf of a woman, sentenced to stoning to death at a public place by a trial court, legal circles claimed that the sentence is not sustainable in the appellate court.

Lawyers dealing with cases under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, under which Zafran Bibi has been convicted by the trial court in Kohat, claimed that under the law the very moment the convict files an appeal before the Federal Shariat Court and retracts her confessional statement, the punishment of Hadd could not be enforced.

It is learnt that some of the lawyers have been pooling money in Kohat so as to file an appeal in the Federal Shariat Court and contest her case.

Some lawyers claimed that there were clear verdicts of the Shariat Court about the Islamic punishment of Rajam (stoning to death) and there were certain conditions which had to be fulfilled while recording confession of an accused.

“Under section 9 (1) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, in case the offence of adultery is proved only by confession of the convict, Hadd shall not be enforced if the convict retracts his or her confession before the Hadd is enforced,” said advocate Noor Alam Khan, Chairman, Voice of Prisoners, Free Legal Aid Cell.

Under sub-section 3 of section 9, he added, the court may order retrial if the convict retracted his or her statement.

Under the ordinance there are two sets of punishments: punishment ordained by the Holy Quran and Sunnah (Hadd) and punishments other than Hadd known as Tazir. The only punishment provided under the Hadd for a married man or woman for the commission of adultery is stoning to death at a public place.

There are two conditions required for awarding a sentence under Hadd: if the accused makes a confession of his or her guilt; or, at least four Muslim adult male witnesses, who are truthful persons and abstain from major sins, give evidence as eyewitnesses.

Most of the Peshawar High Court lawyers told Dawn that although in a number of cases the trial court had sentenced a convict to Rajam, the sentence could not be executed as the Shariat Court had set aside those sentences.

They added that filing of an appeal before the Shariat Court meant retraction of the statement of the convict which she had recorded before the trial court under sections 340 and 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code.