Conviction in Controversial Rape Case

In the matter of Criminal Petition No. 725 of 2023, the Supreme Court addressed the conviction of Muhammad Imran, who had been previously found guilty of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The case originally stemmed from an incident reported by Mumtaz Bibi, who alleged that Imran forcibly raped her in her brother’s house. However, the Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence and the circumstances of the case, revised the conviction from rape to fornication under Section 496-B of the PPC.

Key Issues:

Initial Allegations and Trial: Mumtaz Bibi reported that on 11th July 2016, Muhammad Imran, a friend of her brother, raped her when she was alone at home. The FIR was lodged two days later on 13th July 2016. The trial court convicted Imran under Section 376 PPC (rape) and Section 449 PPC (house-trespass with intent to commit an offense), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and fines.

High Court Proceedings: The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, noting that Mumtaz Bibi's testimony and the corroborative DNA evidence were sufficient to prove the charge of rape.

Supreme Court View: The Supreme Court focused on the delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of physical resistance marks on Mumtaz Bibi. The Court noted that while the DNA evidence confirmed sexual intercourse, it did not conclusively establish rape without the context of consent. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court reclassified the offense from rape to fornication (Section 496-B PPC), citing the absence of conclusive evidence of lack of consent.

Dissenting View: Justice Ayesha A. Malik dissented, arguing that the complainant's evidence and the DNA report should suffice for a rape conviction, highlighting the subjective nature of victim responses to trauma. The court cited cases like Ali Haider v. Jameel Hussain (PLD 2021 SC 362) and Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab (2013 SCMR 203), which emphasize the importance and limitations of DNA evidence in rape cases.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented did not unequivocally support a rape conviction under Section 376 PPC. Instead, it indicated a case of consensual intercourse or fornication, leading to a revised conviction under Section 496-B PPC with a reduced sentence. The Court also modified the conviction under Section 449 PPC to Section 448 PPC (house-trespass), reflecting a lesser offense given the revised context.

Contact Us:

This case underscores the complexities involved in prosecuting sexual offenses and the critical nature of detailed, timely evidence. If you require expert legal assistance in matters of sexual offenses, consent issues, or related legal challenges, AUJ LAWYERS LLP is here to provide comprehensive support. Our experienced team is committed to delivering justice and upholding your legal rights.

We are here to help

Talk to our lawyers today. We tailor our services around your legal needs so that we can reach the desired outcome together.