Delays are common in Crimes Affecting Personal Honor, where victims may hesitate to report due to Psychological Trauma and Societal Pressures --- Lahore High Court, Lahore
Islamabad 06-11-2024: In a significant decision, the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dismissed the appeal of Abdul Basit, who was convicted of abduction and rape. The Court upheld the trial Court’s life sentence for abduction under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment for rape under section 376. The conviction, based largely on the victim’s sole testimony, reinforces the principle that a single, credible witness can be sufficient for conviction in cases involving crimes against personal honor and integrity.
Abdul Basit was convicted for the abduction and rape of Nadia Shaheen in 2018. The prosecution’s case centered around the victim’s detailed testimony, alleging that the appellant and an accomplice, Haseena Bibi, took her under false pretenses, drugged her, and then held her captive while Basit repeatedly assaulted her. The appellant also reportedly blackmailed the victim by taking nude photographs, which he later threatened to make public.
The defense contested the credibility of the testimony, citing a delay in the filing of the First Information Report (FIR) and lack of supporting DNA evidence. However, the Court emphasized that the victim’s consistent and confidence-inspiring account was sufficient to uphold the conviction, even as a solitary witness.
The Lahore High Court cited the Supreme Court of Pakistan precedent that the uncorroborated testimony of a credible and reliable witness, particularly in sexual assault cases, can be adequate for conviction. The judgment referenced “Muhammad Mansha Vs. The State” (2001 SCMR 199) and “Atif Zareef and Others Vs. The State” (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 550), underscoring that a solitary victim’s testimony in such cases stands on a high pedestal.
Addressing the delay in reporting, the Court found that the victim’s fear of societal stigma and Basit’s threats provided a reasonable basis for the delay. Citing “Hamid Khan Vs. The State” (1981 SCMR 448), the judgment affirmed that delays are common in crimes affecting personal honor, where victims may hesitate to report due to psychological trauma and societal pressures.
The nude photographs of the victim, which were reportedly thrown in her home, were admitted as evidence. The Court noted that photographic evidence could serve as both documentary and real evidence, supporting the victim’s testimony. This was supported by “Numan alias Nomi and others Vs. The State” (2023 P Cr. L J 1394) and international cases like “R Vs. Cook” ([1987] 1 All ER 1049).
While the complainant’s counsel referenced prior criminal cases involving the appellant, the Court reinforced that such character evidence is generally inadmissible under Article 68 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as it does not directly pertain to the present case.
The Court noted that evidence of Basit’s interest in the victim and his previous marriage proposal underscored his intent, making his state of mind relevant under Article 27 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
The Lahore High Court dismissed Abdul Basit’s appeal, affirming the trial Court’s judgment. The Court found that the prosecution had proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, citing the victim’s compelling testimony and supporting photographic evidence. The decision not only reinforces the sufficiency of a credible sole witness in securing convictions for sexual violence but also addresses the importance of understanding victim psychology in cases involving delayed reporting.
Powered by Froala Editor
