SHC sets aside conviction of woman in double marriage case

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has set aside the conviction of a woman in a double marriage case observing that the prosecution had failed to prove charges against her.

Uzma Jameel was sentenced to 10 years in imprisonment for concealment of her previous marriage and entering into marriage with another person during lifetime of her first spouse.

According to the prosecution, the complainant, Syed Shujaat Ali, had alleged that he had married the appellant in 2013 but later she married another person without obtaining divorce from him.

The appellant denied the charges and submitted that she had not married the complainant. She claimed that Ali had filed the case against her in order to blackmail her. A single bench of the SHC headed by Justice Omar Sial after hearing the arguments in a recent hearing observed that the complainant had failed to prove his marriage with the appellant as no witness was produced from the locality who could depose that they had seen him living with the appellant in his house.

The high court observed that the marriage certificate produced by the complainant showed that the marriage was registered at the office of the union council secretary in District Central in 2019 after five years of marriage and prior to registration of the FIR.

The SHC observed that the unnamed secretary of the union council who ostensibly issued the certification was also not examined at the trial court to support the prosecution case. The bench observed that the complainant could not provide any evidence that the appellant was working as his secretary prior to marriage.

The high court observed that the trial court formed an incorrect point for determination and it would have been appropriate if the trial court had sent the disputed marriage documents to verify their authenticity and signature of the appellant.

The SHC observed that the complainant’s wife had also no knowledge about the marriage as she did not depose before the trial court to confirm the second marriage of the appellant. The high court observed that neither witnesses to Nikah nor officials of union committees were examined by the prosecution to confirm the registration of marriage of the appellant with the complainant.

The bench observed that the complainant’s mala fide intention was evident from the fact that he brought the estranged brother of the appellant’s husband for testimony to wrongly confirm that her husband had divorced her due to her doubtful character. The high court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove allegations against the appellant and the mala fide intent of the complainant was floating on the surface of the record. The SHC set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant from the charges.