LAHORE, May 2: The Lahore High Court has held that mere witnessing of a video film does not meet the requirements of an evidence for charging a person with the commission of adultery.

In a judgment, released to the press on Monday, the court observed that the Qanoon-i-Shahadat (Law of Evidence) had its own procedure of witnesses for the involvement in offences falling under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and witnessing a video film on a VCR did not meet the legal requirement to charge for the commission of ‘Zina’.

According to the judgment, passed on the bail application of stage artiste Najma Shehzadi alias Rani Bibi, two men — Shehzad Rehman and Mohammad Asif — witnessed a video cassette hired from the shop of Karamat Ali. It showed the two committing adultery with Shehzadi. On their complaint, the Muridke police registered an FIR against Shehzadi and Karamat who were charged under sections 10, 12, 13 and 14 of the Hudood laws, section 18 of the Motion Picture Act, 1979, and sections 292 and 379 PPC. They were arrested and sent to jail.

Najma was, however, released on bail. The court held that the Qanoon-i-Shahadat stipulated that evidence in offences registered under Hudood laws, had to be direct.

It said none of the offences as contained in the FIR, were attributed against the accused. The Section 10, commission of Zina, was not invoked because there was no direct evidence, it added.

Similarly, the provisions of Section 12, which provided for abduction for Zina, and sections 13 and 14, which stipulated purchasing and selling a person for sexual purpose, had not been violated. As for the commission of the offence under the Motion Pictures Ordinance, the judgment said it hardly had a nexus with the offence as it related to the exhibition of uncensored parts of a movie and a police cognizance could only be taken on a written complaint by the Pakistan Film Censor Board.

As for allowing evidence on the basis of a video film and political speeches reported in newspapers, the judgment cited the cases of Rehmat Shah Afridi (PLD 2004 Lahore 829) and the Wali Khan case (PLD 1976 SC 57), and said the decisions were given because of the direct involvement of Rehmat Shah and Wali Khan in video conversation and delivering of speeches.

The FIR did not mention the names of the people who recorded the video film and hired Najma for the purpose.

“Such an evidence was not sufficient to involve any person in offences falling under the Hudood laws,” the judgment said.