Summary: Bail granted --- (1) In rape cases, administration of DNA test (Deoxyribonucleic acid) and preservation of DNA evidence is mandatory. (2) Further inquiry refers to a notional assessment creating doubts regarding the involvement of accused (3) Reasonable grounds are the grounds attracted to the judicial mind which are not imaginative or presumptuous ---- Facts: The case involves abduction allegations under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 -- Petitioners, alleged to have abducted Iqra Bibi for rape --- Ahmar Ali, the real brother of Iqra Bibi, implicated later based on her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.Petitioners argue a consensual marriage between Salman Mushtaq and Iqra Bibi, supported by registration and documentation --- Allegations of mala fide intention, blackmail, and lack of medical evidence raised by the petitioner --- Court emphasizes the need for a tentative assessment to determine reasonable grounds for the accused's involvement.Observes doubts in the veracity of the prosecution case and the need for further inquiry.Highlights the importance of medical examination in rape cases, citing negligence by the prosecution.Grants pre-arrest and post-arrest bail, subject to conditions, considering the absence of reasonable grounds for the accused's involvement.

Summary: Sentence reduced --- Convict appealed his conviction and death sentence for the rape of a minor, on August 10, 2019. The trial court, via judgment dated November 12, 20210, convicted Rafique under Section 376(iii) PPC, sentencing him to death with a fine of Rs.1,00,000 and additional imprisonment in case of default. Rafique was also ordered to pay Rs.2,00,000 as compensation to the victim's family.--- The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence on the grounds of false implication, disputing the evidence presented during the trial. ---- The court rejected the appellant's claims of false implication, citing consistent testimony from the complainant, Abdul Majeed, and an eyewitness, Muhammad Sadiq. Despite a negative DNA report, the court found sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction. However, considering mitigating factors such as the appellant's age and the negative DNA report, the death sentence was converted to life imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed, and the compensation and fine amounts imposed by the trial court were upheld. The Capital Sentence Reference for confirmation of the death sentence was also denied.Legal Principles/Precedents:The court applied the well-established principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as an extenuating circumstance while deciding the sentence.The court considered mitigating factors, such as the appellant's age and the negative DNA report, in determining the appropriate sentence. --- The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the death sentence was converted to life imprisonment. The compensation and fine amounts imposed by the trial court were upheld, and the Capital Sentence Reference for confirmation of the death sentence was denied.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ---- Ss. 302(b), 365-A, 34, and 201 -- Abduction, murder, and disposal of the body -- Conviction based on circumstantial evidence -- Appellants were convicted for abducting a minor for ransom, subsequently murdering him, and disposing of the body -- Held, circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including call data records (CDR), DNA analysis, and recoveries made in consequence of disclosures, was sufficient to establish the guilt of two appellants beyond a reasonable doubt -- However, the evidence against three co-accused lacked corroboration, and they were acquitted. Cited Cases: • Imran alias Dullay v. The State, 2015 SCMR 155 • Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan, 2016 SCMR 274 • Hashim Qasim v. The State, 2017 SCMR 986 (b) Administration of Justice: ---- Standard for circumstantial evidence -- Chain of evidence must be unbroken, with one end touching the deceased and the other end reaching the accused -- Any missing link renders the chain insufficient for conviction, particularly in cases involving capital punishment. Cited Cases: • Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain, PLD 2021 SC 362 (c) DNA evidence and forensic analysis: ---- Admissibility and weight -- DNA analysis corroborated the presence of appellants at the crime scene and linked the murder to the accused -- Despite some delays in sending specimens, the DNA evidence was deemed reliable and corroborated by other circumstantial evidence -- Court reiterated the importance of modern forensic tools in criminal justice. Cited Cases: • Mst. Askar Jan v. Muhammad Daud, 2010 SCMR 1604 (d) Sentencing: ---- Capital punishment -- Conversion to life imprisonment -- In the absence of eyewitness testimony, last-seen evidence, or judicial confession, the standard for awarding the death penalty was not met -- Death sentences of two appellants were reduced to life imprisonment as a matter of judicial discretion and in light of mitigating circumstances. Cited Cases: • Iftikhar Ahmed Khan v. Asghar Khan, 2009 SCMR 502 -----Disposition: Appeals of three co-accused were allowed, resulting in their acquittal due to lack of substantive evidence. Appeals of two main accused were partly allowed, with death sentences converted to life imprisonment, while other sentences and fines remained intact. Murder reference was answered in the negative.

Summary: Issue:The primary issue was whether ordering a DNA test of the accused during the trial violates Article 13(b) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which protects against self-incrimination, and whether such an order can be issued during the trial.----Rule:The court examined international human rights instruments, precedents from Pakistan and other jurisdictions, and various legal provisions including the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, to determine the legality and appropriateness of DNA tests in criminal proceedings, especially concerning the rights against self-incrimination and the principles of a fair trial.---Analysis:The court concluded that DNA testing does not violate the constitutional right against self-incrimination as it is not considered testimonial evidence. It is akin to fingerprinting, serving as a crucial tool for identifying perpetrators. The court further held that the trial court possesses ample authority to order such tests at any stage of the trial to ascertain the truth and ensure justice, emphasizing that a fair trial encompasses the rights of the accused, the victim, and society at large.----Conclusion:The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court's order for a DNA test of the petitioner. The judgment reaffirmed the position that DNA tests are permissible in criminal proceedings and do not infringe upon the constitutional protections against self-incrimination, provided they are conducted to ascertain the truth and facilitate the administration of justice.----Significance:This judgment highlights the judiciary's role in balancing the rights of the accused with the imperative of uncovering the truth in criminal cases. It underscores the admissibility and importance of DNA evidence in the Pakistani legal system while ensuring that the constitutional rights of individuals are respected.

Summary: Issues:Whether the collection of DNA samples via buccal swabs from individuals arrested for violent crimes violates the Fourth Amendment.Whether such DNA collection can be deemed reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.----Holding:The Supreme Court held that the collection of DNA samples via buccal swabs from individuals under arrest does constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. However, it may be considered reasonable given the government's interest in identifying perpetrators and advancing law enforcement objectives. Therefore, such DNA collection is permissible under the Fourth Amendment.----Reasoning:Justice Kennedy's opinion reasoned that the reasonableness of a search is determined by weighing legitimate governmental objectives against the intrusion on an individual's privacy. DNA testing aids law enforcement in identifying perpetrators and is crucial in advancing the government's interests. The intrusion of a cheek swab is minimal compared to the significant government interest and the efficacy of DNA identification. Additionally, an individual's privacy expectations diminish when taken into custody, akin to police practices of fingerprinting and photographing arrestees.----Precedents:The court cited Maryland v. King, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of DNA collection from arrestees. The decision emphasized society's interest in identifying and prosecuting culprits outweighing privacy concerns.----Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that DNA collection via buccal swabs from individuals under arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The government's interest in identifying perpetrators and advancing law enforcement objectives justifies the minimal intrusion on privacy. Therefore, such DNA collection is permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

Summary: (Right to liberty and right to privacy under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution - DNA test cannot be conducted without consent of the party in civil cases) The petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging a gift mutation made by the deceased Muhammad Hussain in favor of the petitioner. The respondents, claiming to be legal heirs of Muhammad Hussain, alleged that the petitioner was not his son and had obtained the gift mutation fraudulently. The trial court dismissed an application by the respondents for a DNA test of the petitioner and two other individuals. However, the revisional court allowed the application, ordering the DNA test. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, but it was dismissed. The petitioner then filed the present petition seeking leave to appeal. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the fundamental rights of privacy and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. It noted that ordering a DNA test without the consent of the individuals involved infringes their fundamental rights. The court highlighted that privacy encompasses protection from unwarranted intrusion into personal lives, including personal information and family life. It stated that the conducting of a DNA test without consent violates these rights. The court also discussed the right to liberty, which includes freedom from arbitrary or purposeless encroachments by the state. It emphasized that individuals have the right to control their bodies and make decisions about their healthcare. Unauthorized DNA collection was seen as a violation of bodily autonomy and personal freedom. Furthermore, the court noted that the presumption of paternity under the law could be used when a person refuses to undergo a DNA test. However, this presumption does not apply to individuals who are not parties to the proceedings and have not given their consent for a DNA test. Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court concluded that the revisional court and the High Court had erred in ordering the DNA test without the consent of the individuals involved. The court highlighted the importance of other evidence presented by the petitioner to establish his relationship with the deceased Muhammad Hussain. It emphasized that if the petitioner could prove his mother's valid marriage to Muhammad Hussain, it would conclusively establish his legitimacy as the son of Muhammad Hussain, as per the law. In light of these findings, the Supreme Court determined that there was no jurisdictional error in the trial court's order and denied the petitioner leave to appeal.

Summary: Life Imprisonment---Dismissed--Fazeela was reportedly violated by the appellant, who was her father's first cousin. She was found unconscious by her younger sister after the incident. The report was filed promptly with the police, and medical examination confirmed the assault. However, forensic reports did not confirm the presence of DNA or seminal stains.The defense argued that the testimony of the young prosecutrix and her sister, due to their tender age, might not be reliable. They also pointed to the negative forensic report as casting doubt on the case. The defense further contended that the High Court's decision to enhance the sentence was unjustified given the appellant's juvenile status and lack of prior history.The court, after reviewing the records, noted that the crime was reported promptly, and the relationship between the appellant and the victim left little room for collusion or consultation. The court emphasized that penetration alone was sufficient to establish the offense, and the absence of DNA evidence didn't invalidate the prosecution's strong case. The court also considered the violence inflicted on the child and upheld the High Court's decision to enhance the sentence, stating that it wasn't excessive. As a result, both the petition and appeal were dismissed.

Summary: Background: The complainant, a 20-year-old woman, was abducted and gang-raped by the accused while traveling from Kotli Sattian to Rawalpindi. She immediately reported the incident to the police, naming the perpetrators. Two more accused were added to the FIR through a supplementary statement. Three of the accused were tried and convicted under Section 376(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), receiving the death penalty and compensation orders from the trial court. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment. One accused appealed his conviction and another challenged the reduction of sentence in the Supreme Court. -----Issues: 1- Was the complainant's testimony reliable and sufficient for conviction? -----2- Is the defense of questioning the complainant's character admissible in court? -----3- Can DNA evidence and medical reports independently corroborate the complainant's testimony? -----4- Was the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment appropriate? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Testimony of the Complainant: The complainant's testimony was detailed, consistent, and trustworthy. It was corroborated by her immediate reporting of the incident and supported by medical evidence and DNA analysis. The Court emphasized that the complainant, a well-educated woman, had no motive to falsely accuse the perpetrators of such a heinous act. --Defense of Character Questioning: The Court deemed any attempt to question the complainant’s character irrelevant and unconstitutional, emphasizing that a victim's sexual history has no bearing on consent or credibility in a rape case. References to the "two-finger test" or similar methods were criticized as unscientific and violative of the victim’s dignity under Articles 4 and 14 of the Constitution. --Corroboration by DNA Evidence: DNA evidence was considered the gold standard for identification, confirming the involvement of two accused in the crime. Medical reports corroborated recent sexual activity and injuries, supporting the complainant's account. --Acquittal of One Accused: One appellant, was acquitted due to insufficient evidence, including his exclusion from the DNA report and lack of identification by the complainant at the time of the FIR. --Reduction of Sentence: The life imprisonment sentence for the remaining convicted appellants was upheld as proportionate, given the severity of the crime and the evidence presented. --Directive on Proclaimed Offenders: The Court directed the Inspector General of Punjab Police to ensure the arrest of the remaining two proclaimed offenders, emphasizing that the delay in justice undermines the rule of law. Two appellants’ convictions were upheld, and their life sentences were maintained. One appellant was acquitted on benefit of the doubt. A directive was issued to pursue the arrest of proclaimed offenders. -----Citations/Precedents: Legal and Constitutional Protections: Article 4 and Article 14 of the Constitution: Protection of human dignity and reputation. Omission of Article 151(4) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order: Prohibits questioning the victim's general immoral character. Scientific and Legal Standards: DNA evidence and modern forensic science are the gold standard for corroborating rape allegations. WHO’s "Eliminating Virginity Testing" Statement: Declares "two-finger tests" unscientific and irrelevant. Relevant Cases: Mukhtar Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan: Declared Article 151(4) of QSO repugnant to Islamic injunctions. National Commission on the Status of Women Reports: Highlighted the patriarchal biases in sexual assault cases.

Summary: Acquittal granted --- Background: The appellants, Saleem Bhelar, Fardoo @ Farhat Ali Bhelar, and Shah Muhammad Bhelar, filed criminal appeals challenging the judgment dated August 31, 2018, by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur, where they were convicted of offenses under Sections 376/2, 506/2 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), and Sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997. The complainant also filed a constitutional petition seeking an enhancement of the sentences. The case arose from an incident reported in FIR No. 78/2014, in which the complainant accused the appellants of committing gang rape and issuing threats to the victim, Mst. Abida. The trial court convicted the appellants based on the prosecution's evidence, but the appellants contended that the trial was unjust, and they were falsely implicated due to enmity over land. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the prosecution’s case was established beyond a reasonable doubt, based on evidence and testimonies. ---2) Whether the delay in the lodging of the FIR and the lack of forensic and corroborative evidence cast doubt on the prosecution’s claims. ---3) Whether the trial court appropriately evaluated the evidence, including medical reports, witness testimonies, and the absence of the victim’s testimony. ---4) Whether the rule of benefit of doubt applies in this case, warranting the acquittal of the appellants. --- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court allowed the criminal appeals and acquitted the appellants, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted several significant discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, including the delayed lodging of the FIR, the absence of the victim’s testimony, and the lack of medical and forensic evidence to corroborate the allegations of rape. It was observed that the testimonies of "chance witnesses" required independent corroboration, which was not provided in this case. The victim was never produced in court, and the medical examination, conducted seven days after the incident, did not align with the prosecution’s narrative. The court found no signs of violence on the victim and noted that crucial evidence such as DNA tests and the recovery of clothing articles were not properly handled. Citing several precedents, the court emphasized that the principle of benefit of the doubt must apply when the prosecution’s case is inconsistent and lacks credible evidence. The court held that a single doubt was enough to acquit the appellants under the rule of prudence in criminal law. The constitutional petition seeking the enhancement of the sentences was dismissed, and the court ordered the release of the appellants, unless they were required in connection with any other case. ---- Citations/Precedents: Mst. Anwar Begum v. Akhtar Hussain alias Kaka (2017 SCMR 1710) Haider Ali and others v. The State (2016 SCMR 1554) Saira Bibi v. Muhammad Asif (2009 SCMR 946) Muhammad Javed v. The State (2019 SCMR 1920) Mehr Noor Muhammad v. Nazir Ahmed (PLD 2024 Supreme Court 45)

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:The petitioner, Irfan Ali Sher, was charged under sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the sexual assault of a fifteen-year-old minor girl on September 15, 2014. The FIR was lodged on September 16, 2014, and the petitioner was convicted for rape under section 376 PPC by the trial court. He was sentenced to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine. On appeal to the Lahore High Court, his sentence was reduced to ten years.---Issues:Whether the delay in reporting the sexual assault to the police affects the credibility of the victim's testimony.Whether the failure to obtain a DNA forensic report or the victim's clothes affects the prosecution's case.Whether the investigation conducted by a male police officer instead of a female officer impacts the case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that the delay in reporting the assault does not necessarily undermine the credibility of the victim's testimony, considering the trauma victims may experience. Past cases have established that such delays do not materially affect the case.The absence of a DNA forensic report or the victim's clothes does not invalidate the prosecution's case, especially when medical examination findings corroborate the victim's testimony. The court emphasized that obtaining a DNA report is not mandatory under the law.Despite the investigation being conducted by a male police officer instead of a female officer, the failure to obtain the victim's clothes was noted as a procedural shortcoming. However, this did not materially affect the case's outcome, given the substantial evidence supporting the prosecution's case.The court also highlighted the leniency shown by the trial court and the High Court in sentencing the petitioner, considering the minimum punishment prescribed by law for the offense.As no grounds for leave to appeal were established, the petition was dismissed, affirming the decision of the High Court.---Citations/Precedents:Yasmin Butt v Majid Baig (2008 SCMR 1602)The State v Abdul Khaliq (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 554)Zahid v State (unreported judgment dated 3rd March 2020 in Jail Petition No. 712/2018)