Islamabad High Court (IHC) Upholds 14-Year Sentence in Rape Case; Landmark Judgment Reinforces DNA Evidence and Victim Testimony
Islamabad 07-03-2025: In a landmark ruling, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) dismissed the appeal of accused, upholding his 14-year rigorous imprisonment for rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), 1860. The decision reaffirms key legal principles surrounding DNA evidence, victim testimony, and the impact of societal stigma on delayed reporting of sexual assault cases.
The case originated from a rape complaint filed by a 20-year-old victim, who alleged that the accused, a neighbor, raped her at gunpoint while her parents were away. The victim remained silent due to fear and social stigma but reported the incident eight months later, when her pregnancy became evident. A DNA test conclusively confirmed that the appellant was the biological father of the victim’s child.
A trial Court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000, with an additional six months simple imprisonment in case of default. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
The Court reaffirmed that a rape conviction does not require independent corroboration if the victim’s statement is credible and consistent. The judgment cited multiple Supreme Court of Pakistan precedents, including Ashraf Vs. The Crown (PLD 1956 FC 86) and Ibrar Hussain Vs. State (2007 SCMR 605), to establish that corroboration is a rule of prudence, not a legal necessity.
- “Rape is committed in private, and Courts do not insist upon eyewitness corroboration if the victim’s testimony is confidence-inspiring.”
The Court dismissed the Appellant’s argument that the victim’s delay in filing an FIR weakened her case. The judgment referenced Nasreen Vs. Fayyaz Khan (PLD 1991 SC 412) and Mehboob Ahmed Vs. State (1999 SCMR 1102), holding that societal pressures, honor-based fears, and victim-blaming culture justify delayed reporting.
- “Only 10% of sexual assault victims report their cases, and delays are expected due to cultural stigma.”
The DNA report (Exh.PJ) confirmed with 99.99% probability that the accused was the father of the victim’s child, conclusively proving sexual intercourse. The Court ruled that DNA is the gold standard in rape cases, citing Salman Akram Raja Vs. Government of Punjab (2013 SCMR 203).
- “DNA technology should be used to identify culprits and exonerate the innocent.”
The Appellant argued that the victim did not scream or resist, implying consensual intercourse. The Court rejected this defense, clarifying that submission due to fear is not consent under Section 90 of PPC. The judgment referenced Imran Vs. The State (2016 PCr.LJ 1888) and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chhotey Lal (2011 (2) SCC 550) (India).
- “A victim’s passive submission due to fear does not amount to legal consent.”
The Appellant denied any sexual intercourse with the victim, despite DNA evidence proving otherwise. The Court noted that if an accused does not claim consensual intercourse but only denies it entirely, it weakens the defense.
- “The Appellant failed to provide any reasonable explanation or evidence contradicting the DNA report, making the conviction inevitable.”
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, ruling that the trial Court correctly applied the law. It concluded that the victim’s testimony, corroborated by forensic evidence, proved the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
Powered by Froala Editor
