MULTAN, Aug 23: The rape accused cannot be penalized merely on the statement of a woman (the victim) because this is what God orders.

This was claimed by the defence in the Meerwala gang-rape case while giving final arguments for the second day running on Friday.

Defence counsel Malik Muhammad Saleem argued that punishment for Zina in Islam is ‘stoning to death’ and, therefore, at least four Tazkiya Alshahud (eyewitnesses) must testify the occurrence. He said previously the facility of serological test was not available but now this had become possible with the advancement in technology to ascertain who was guilty of the rape. But the police did not bother to get conducted this test in such a high-profile case.

Defending accused Ghulam Farid, juror-rapist, the defence counsel said he was implicated in the case because Maulvi Abdul Razzaq (PW11) had an enmity with his father-in-law over the allotment of a piece of land. He argued that the name of Farid’s father was given in the FIR as Mehmood which, later on, in a supplementary statement changed as Allah Bakhsh.

He said the complainant should have got registered the case with due care because it was being reported after a gap of eight days. He said neither Mukhtaran Mai asked the police to correct the name of Farid’s father at the time of case registration nor her father, Ghulam Farid, and uncle Sabir Husain pointed at this at the first instance. While got changing the name of Farid’s father in her supplementary statement, she took an excuse that Sabir pointed out to her about the mistake at home. Though Sabir Husain (PW13) was present when the FIR was being written.

He pleaded that Farid was not a relative of Abdul Khaliq, and that he was a married person with kids. “Why does he destroy his family life without any justification (by committing rape).” The other accused, Allah Ditta, was the elder brother of Khaliq. He was also a father of four. The defence counsel questioned that how could a person commit rape in a house where he lived with his children. He claimed that brothers could not commit rape in each other’s presence.

He demanded that the statement of the victim in this regard should not be accepted as true in the light of a Supreme Court ruling (SGMR, 1989, Page No. 1851) that brothers could not join hands in Zina Biljabar.

The counsel said Islam has a ‘golden principle’ that there is no harm in acquitting 10 accused guilty of a crime in order to save one innocent.

In defence of chief juror Faiz Muhammad Mastoi, the counsel referred to the FIR which revealed that except Khaliq, Farid and Ramzan Pachaar all the participants of the gathering, including Faiz Muhammad, opposed the idea of ‘rape for a rape’. When Khaliq clutched Mukhtaran Mai, Faiz asked him to pardon Ghulam Farid as his daughter had come to beg mercy.

He alleged that while deposing before the court she improved her statement by terming Faiz’s role as ‘Siasi and Duniavi’ only to implicate him. Among the PWs, only Sabir Husain had claimed that Faiz Muhammad shouted when Mukhtaran Mai came before the panchayat: “Take her and subject to rape”.

The defence counsel pleaded that according to the FIR, there were four eyewitnesses — Ghulam Farid, Sabir Husain, Ghulam Nabi and Altaf. He said the prosecution had given up Farid and Ghulam Nabi as the witnesses presented before the court.

He said Altaf was an eyewitness but his statement had not been recorded under Section 164 CrPC “because, in fact, he was not present at the time of occurrence.” While about Sabir, the victim herself had stated that he was not present in the house of Khaliq where she was raped. He said while Ghulam Nabi in his statement to police had denied that he was there at the time of the crime. “Hence, there is only a solitary statement of the victim which support her claim,” the counsel stressed.

During his incomplete arguments on Friday, the defence counsel on a number of occasions cited that the police and doctors (who carried out medical examination of the victim and the accused) were under the immense government pressure to give ‘positive reports’ because the case had been highlighted here and abroad.

The defence had yet to complete his arguments when the judge adjourned the proceedings for Saturday.