A criminal court in Kohat ruled, a fortnight ago, that...

A criminal court in Kohat ruled, a fortnight ago, that Zafran Bibi be stoned to death under the Zina Ordinance (sex-related crimes) for indulging in adultery. She had alleged that her brother-in-law had raped and impregnated her, but the court deemed her pregnancy as proof beyond doubt.
Past history of similar cases suggests that, in all likelihood, the decision of the lower court will be over-turned by the Federal Sharia Court and that Zafran Bibi will not be stoned to death. But even an eventual favourable legal decision would not even come close to undoing the injustice already meted out to the accused: the trauma of being raped, the agony of seeing the rapist go scot-free, the harassment suffered at the hands of family, police and the society, and the time already spent behind bars before being set-free.
Introduction of new techniques such as DNA testing could help establish the guilt of the accused male. But that would still not help determine whether it was a rape of adultery, and thus the balance would still be tipped against women.
There is nothing to gainsay that primitive evidentiary requirements prescribed by Hudood laws need to replaced with those in sync with current social realities and criminological techniques. But the more fundamental question is whether or not we should have the Hudood laws on our statute books in the first place? Should the Quranic penalties be applied in the manner that protects rapists, hurts victims and perpetuates injustice?
According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, an overwhelming majority of women continue to be booked under Hudood laws, and especially the Zina ordinance continues to be used widely by parents and husbands to file suits against disobedient daughters and estranged wives.