Summary: Acquittal granted ---- 1. Criminal Law – Rape – Failure to Produce Crucial Evidence (Sections 376, 509, 292 PPC) The prosecution failed to produce critical evidence, including the alleged weapon used in the crime, memory card, and nude photographs, which were central to substantiating the charges. Lack of safe custody of case property and inconsistency in descriptions of the memory card rendered the evidence inadmissible. (Nadeem alias Kala v. State, 2010 SCMR 949). ------- 2. Medical Examination – Potency Test – Non-Compliance with Section 53-A CrPC The absence of a potency test report for the accused, as mandated by Section 53-A CrPC, created a serious procedural lapse. Proof of potency is essential in sexual offence cases to establish the accused’s capability to commit the alleged crime. (Zafar Iqbal v. The State, 2022 SCMR 223). ------- 3. Withholding Natural Witnesses – Adverse Inference (Section 114(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984) The prosecution failed to produce natural witnesses, including the children allegedly locked in a room, leading to an adverse inference against the prosecution. (Mst. Shazia Parveen v. The State, 2014 SCMR 1197). ------- 4. Prosecution’s Inconsistencies – Doubt in Prosecution Case Inconsistencies regarding the date on the memory card and discrepancies in the ages of the victim’s children cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's case. Such contradictions weaken the prosecution’s stance and entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt. (Muhammad Mansha v. The State, 2018 SCMR 772). ------- 5. Victim's Non-Medico-Legal Examination – Effect on Prosecution Case (Section 376 PPC) The victim did not undergo a medico-legal examination to corroborate the allegations of rape, a critical requirement to substantiate charges under Section 376 PPC. This omission created a significant evidentiary gap. (Sarfraz v. The State, 2000 SCMR 1758). ------- 6. Compromise by Complainant and Victim – No Objection to Acquittal During trial, the complainant and the victim stated their lack of objection to the appellant’s acquittal. Although compromise does not outright absolve the accused in certain offences, it reinforces doubts in an already weak prosecution case. ------- 7. Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution's Failure to Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Sections 376, 509, 292 PPC) The prosecution's failure to meet the threshold of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, coupled with inconsistencies and lack of crucial evidence, entitled the appellant to the benefit of the doubt. (Tarique Parvez v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1345). ------- Disposition: Appeal Allowed: Convictions and sentences under Sections 376, 509, and 292 PPC were set aside. Appellant Acquitted: The appellant was acquitted of all charges by extending the benefit of doubt. Order for Immediate Release: Appellant was ordered to be released unless required in any other case. ---Order accordingly.