January 31, 2006	Tuesday	Muharram 1, 1427

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

PESHAWAR, Jan 30: Defence lawyers have finalised an appeal against the conviction of an Afghan national and an order of amputation of limbs passed by a trial court. It is learnt that the judge had only released a short order and not the detailed judgment at the trial’s conclusion on Jan 26.

The defence lawyers said if the judgment was not released by Tuesday they would probably file an appeal before the Federal Shariat Court on the basis of the short order.

Although a full bench of the Shariat Court was already busy hearing different cases, the lawyers said they were confident the court would suspend the judgment against their client.

Following completion of the trial, Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Jamal Khan ordered the amputation of the right hand from the wrist and the left foot from the ankle.

The accused, Ajab Khan, son of Awal Khan of the Afghan city of Jalalabad, was convicted under section 17(3) of the Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

The court handed down a five-year sentence and ordered the man to pay a fine of Rs30,000. In case Ajab Khan does not pay the fine, he will have to serve six more months in jail.

“The trial court has overlooked different important conditions required for sentencing a person under hadd,” said Noor Alam Khan, chairman of the Voice of Prisoners, who will also represent the convict along with other lawyers.

He said an application would be filed with the appeal for the suspension of the sentence and granting bail to the convict.

“We are hopeful that the Shariat court will overturn the verdict as in the past no such judgments had been upheld,” Mr Khan said.

Advocate Abdul Mabud Khattak, who represented the convict before the trial court, told Dawn that during the trial the presiding officer had not satisfied himself whether the witnesses fulfilled the conditions required for sentencing a person under hadd and not under tazir.

He said that in the said Hudood ordinance, there were two sets of punishments: sentences under the hadd and under tazir. He added that hadd meant the Islamic punishments given in the law, whereas any other punishments other then hadd were under tazir.

Mr Khattak stated that when a person could not be sentenced under the hadd he had to be sentenced under the relevant sections of the Pakistan Penal Code. However, he added, the trial judge sentenced the convict both under hadd and tazir.

He pointed out that section 7 of the ordinance clearly stated that the sentence under hudd could only be awarded either when the accused pleaded guilty, or, at least two adult male witnesses who qualify the tazkiya Al-Shuhood testified against him. He said that such witnesses should be deemed as truthful and virtuous. The same conditions were applicable to cases under section 17(3), he said.