Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 376, 377, 342, 506 & 34---Rape, unnatural offence, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, common intention---Bail, dismissal of---Allegations of abduction and unnatural offence were levelled against the accused/petitioner---Apparently the FIR suffered a delay of almost twenty-seven days---Perusal of the document revealed that complainant, a teenage boy, reported the egregious incident on 02-07-2025 and had justified the said lapse of time by stating that he was under serious threat extended by the accused/petitioner---Keeping the said statement of the victimized boy, the record of the case was examined---During the perusal of record, statement of witness caught the attention---Said witness had corroborated the statement of victim boy regarding the alleged intimidation for taking leverage---Said witness also stated about some video recording of the alleged abhorrent incident and the alleged threat of the accused/petitioner for displaying the same on social media---Regarding abduction for un-natural lust, the statement of the victim was corroborated by the witness---There was prima facie evidence of abduction and un-natural offence on record and offence under S. 367-A, P.P.C provided capital punishment---Delay in lodging of the report was explained by the complainant and same was corroborated by the witness---Other point regarding age of the accused/petitioner was not convincing---Keeping in view the particular nature of the offence, point of juvenility was out of consideration---Mere fact that accused/petitioner was a juvenile could be considered in other offences, but in a case where the accused was charged for un-natural offence and prima facie evidence supported the allegation, it would be erroneous to declare the accused a juvenile---Without recording and discussing this point any further, lest the Trial Court would get influenced, the matter was left at the discretion of Trial Court---However, keeping in view the gravity of offences, the accused/petitioner could not be granted benefit of him being one year below the age of adulthood at this stage---Bail application being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances. Umair v. The State 2021 MLD 527 and Farman Ali v. The State and another 2018 PCr.LJ 343 rel. Muntazir Abbas for Petitioner. Malik Sherbaz Khan Additional Advocate General for the State. Complainant in person along with counsel Imtiaz Huassain. Date of hearing: 29th September, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictory statements of witnesses---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Record reflected that the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge had produced the evidence of nine witnesses---Minute security of all the said witnesses transpired that the crime was not directly witnessed by them rather all the witnesses were present either in their houses or at the work place, hence the statements of said witnesses were hearsay evidence, which otherwise was not helpful to the case of prosecution---Victim though described the whole story by stating that on 25th October 2023 he was sitting in front of his house, in the meanwhile, at about 08:45 a.m. accused came there and asked him to watch his house, as he intended to attend a funeral ceremony, then took him to his house, where the accused committed unnatural offence with him---While contrary to the same, the complainant deposed in his Court statement that on the day of incident at about 08:45 a.m. he was present at his field, as such, received a telephone call, whereby he was informed about the occurrence---During the course of cross-examination, the victim deposed that his father was a rickshaw driver on those days, whereas the complainant stated that he was working in his cultivated land on the day of incident---Victim stated that on the said date another person namely “A” came to his house along with his father, while said witness “A” negated narration of victim in his Court statement, whereby he deposed that he was present in his house, on listening of hue and cry, he promptly reached to the house of complainant, where on his query, the victim disclosed to him that accused committed sodomy with him and he was bleeding and his shalwar was also blood stained---Thus, such contradictory statement of a star witness created serious dents in the case of prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence not supporting the ocular account---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Chief Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital, conducted the examination of victim and observed that blood was oozing from the external anal region and both buttocks were wet with blood, though he also took samples of anal swab, however, the statement of said witness was silent with regard to the specific performance of intercourse---Besides, said witness deposed in his Court statement that asurgeon was called for expert opinion, but the perusal of record revealed that prosecution had failed to produce the said surgeon---Even otherwise, the opinion of the referred Medical Officer was also not available on record---However, after examination of anal swabs, the Forensic Science Agency issued report of DNA and serology analysis, which transpired that the anal swabs of the victim were not found to be stained with semen, which even otherwise negated the ocular testimony---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Azizullah v. The State 2017 PCr.LJ 1623 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of six hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Occurrence took place on 25th October 2022 at about 08.45 a.m., whereas the distance between the Police Station and the house of complainant was about 02 kilometers, hence it was expected that the FIR should have been lodged promptly without any delay, but perusal of FIR revealed that the same was lodged on 25th October 2025 at about 02:15 p.m. i.e. after delay of about six hours and the prosecution had failed to give any plausible explanation with regard to inordinate delay in prompt lodging of FIR---Main purpose of lodging FIR was to set criminal law in motion and to bring on record first-hand information about the occurrence of a crime---Besides, it provided a sound basis for carrying out investigation in the right direction excluding the possibility of fabrication of any false story---In view of the circumstances of present case, delay in lodging FIR could not be taken lightly and it casted serious doubts in the case of the prosecution--- Delay in lodging the FIR could only be condoned, when such delay had been adequately explained but in the instant case, there was no explanation for inordinate delay in lodging FIR---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Abdul Wali and 2 others v. The State 2020 YLR 256 and Muhammad Hassan and another v. The State 2024 SCMR 1427 rel. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Accused cannot be deprived of benefit of doubt, merely because there is only one circumstance, which created doubts in the prosecution story. Khial Muhammad v. The State 2024 SCMR 1490 rel. Aftab Ahmed Lone for Appellant. Younas Mengal, Additional P.G. for the State. Ayub Khan Sherani for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 31st July, 2025. Muhammad Najam-ud-Din Mengal, J .--- This judgment disposes of Criminal Appeal No.(L)03 of 2024 filed by the appellant Saif ur Rehman Son of Abdul Razzaq, against the judgment dated 31st August 2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Loralai (“the trial Court Court”), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 377 P.P.C and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for Life with fine of Rs.500,000/-, and in default thereof to further suffer Six (06) months S.I., he was further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the victim boy Shahid Khan under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. for mental anguish and psychological damage cost to him which shall be recovered as an arear of land revenue.

Summary: Acquittal granted --- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – S. 342 – Judicial Confession – Retraction – Evidentiary Value Held, a retracted judicial confession, although admissible, must be corroborated by independent and trustworthy evidence—In the present case, the confession allegedly made by the accused was later retracted, and no independent, confidence-inspiring corroboration was available—Medical and forensic evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction—Confession recorded under pressure or in the presence of hostile parties cannot form the basis for conviction—Conviction based solely on a retracted confession, without credible supporting evidence, is unsustainable—Principles reiterated from Obaidullah v. The State (2025 SCP 177), Aala Muhammad v. The State (2008 SCMR 649), Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 898), and Daniel Boyd v. The State (1992 SCMR 196). (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) – Ss. 302(b), 377 – Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Benefit of Doubt Held, prosecution case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence—There were significant doubts including unexplained delay in lodging FIR, interested witnesses, lack of direct evidence, and belated introduction of last-seen witness—Recovery of weapon and forensic evidence not sufficient to conclusively link accused to the offence—Medical opinion regarding sodomy was inconsistent and not corroborated by initial postmortem—Held, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be unbroken and incapable of any other explanation than guilt of accused—Failure of one link destroys entire case—Principles reiterated from Siraj v. The Crown (PLD 1956 FC 123), Ch. Barkat Ali v. Major Karam Elahi Zia (1992 SCMR 1047), and Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain (2008 SCMR 1103). (c) Criminal Law – FIR – Delay in Lodging – Effect on Prosecution Credibility Held, FIR was registered approximately 47 hours after discovery of deceased—No plausible explanation provided—Complainant had ample opportunity to lodge FIR, but chose to wait until after burial and consultations—Such delay casts serious doubt on credibility and spontaneity of prosecution version—Cited: Altaf Hussain v. The State (2019 SCMR 274), Amir Muhammad Khan v. The State (2023 SCMR 566). (d) Constitutional Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Acquittal Held, where doubt exists in a prosecution case, no matter how minor, it must be resolved in favour of accused—It is the duty of the court to ensure that no innocent person is convicted based on assumptions, conjecture or interested testimony—Where multiple factors (retracted confession, inconsistent medical findings, delayed FIR, biased witnesses) raise serious doubt, acquittal is the only lawful outcome—Reaffirmed: “Benefit of doubt is not a concession but a legal right of the accused.” Disposition: Appeal allowed—Judgments of the Trial Court dated 02.01.2017 and High Court dated 30.09.2020 set aside—Appellant Manzoor Ahmed acquitted of all charges by extending benefit of doubt—To be released forthwith unless required in another case. Cited Authorities & Cases: Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 342, 164 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 377 Obaidullah v. The State (2025 SCP 177) Altaf Hussain v. The State (2019 SCMR 274) Amir Muhammad Khan v. The State (2023 SCMR 566) Ch. Barkat Ali v. Major Karam Elahi Zia (1992 SCMR 1047) Siraj v. The Crown (PLD 1956 FC 123) Aala Muhammad v. The State (2008 SCMR 649)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 410---Appeal against conviction---Juvenile offender tried by Special Court under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, instead of Juvenile Court---Effect---Appellant was convicted under Ss. 376(iii) & 377-B, P.P.C. by the Gender-Based Violence (GBV) Court, Islamabad, and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine---Appellant contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the offense and should have been tried under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018---Held, that the trial of a juvenile offender must be conducted by a court designated under the Juvenile Act, not by a GBV Court unless specifically designated as a Juvenile Court under the law---The Juvenile Justice System prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment, aligning with constitutional and international principles for juvenile protection, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)---The trial conducted by the Special Court was declared coram non judice (without jurisdiction) and thus void---Appeal partially allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; matter remanded to the Juvenile Court for fresh proceedings, including potential disposal through diversion under S.9 of the Juvenile Act. (b) Juvenile Justice System Act (XXII of 2018)---- ----Ss. 4, 9 & 23---Juvenile Justice System---Principle of rehabilitation and diversion---Juvenile Court’s role as parens patriae---Trial court must prioritize the reformation, reintegration, and protection of the juvenile offender rather than imposing punitive measures---Diversion under S. 9 of the Juvenile Act allows cases of juveniles to be resolved outside formal judicial proceedings, avoiding the stigma of conviction and focusing on reintegration through restitution, community service, or rehabilitation programs---Statement of the victim’s father (PW-1) recorded in trial, wherein he forgave the accused in the name of Allah, should have been considered for potential diversion under the Juvenile Act---Matter remanded for reconsideration by the Juvenile Justice Committee. (c) Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021---- ----S. 3(3) & Sch. II---Jurisdiction of Special Courts under the Anti-Rape Act vis-à-vis Juvenile Justice System---Where both the Juvenile Act and Anti-Rape Act apply, the legislative intent and overriding provisions must be analyzed---Held, that due to the "deeming clause" in S. 3(3) of the Anti-Rape Act, a Juvenile Court is deemed to be a Special Court under the Act, allowing it to try juvenile offenders for offenses listed in Schedule II, including S. 377-B, P.P.C.---However, the converse is not true; a GBV Court not designated as a Juvenile Court cannot try a juvenile offender---Conviction by an unauthorized forum vitiates the entire proceedings, requiring remand to the competent Juvenile Court. (d) International Law---- ----United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules)----Pakistan’s obligations as a signatory to CRC mandate that juvenile offenders be treated with dignity, ensuring rehabilitation and reintegration into society rather than punitive measures---Principles of restorative justice, diversion, and protection of juvenile identity must be upheld in all proceedings---Juvenile justice system aims to prevent recidivism by fostering a corrective and child-centric approach. ----Cited Cases: Syed Mushahid Shah v. Federal Investment Agency (2017 SCMR 1218) Mehran v. Ubaid Ullah (PLD 2024 SC 843) Khawar Kayani v. The State (PLD 2022 SC 551) Malik Mahmood Ahmad Khan v. Malik Moazam Mahmood (CPLA 2250-L/2016, 2024 SC) Dr. Abdul Nabi v. Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Quetta (2023 SCMR 1267) ----Disposition: Conviction and sentence set aside.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): —S. 377—Non-compoundable offence—Scope of compromise—Acquittal in non-compoundable offence—DNA evidence—Revisional jurisdiction. The applicant was convicted under Section 377, P.P.C., and sentenced to three years imprisonment with a fine—The complainant, father of the victim, appeared before the court and expressed no objection to the applicant's acquittal after an out-of-court settlement—Offence under Section 377, P.P.C., is non-compoundable, but courts have recognized compromises in such cases where the primary objective is to promote harmonious relations—The complainant’s consent and lack of intent to pursue the case were considered—The prosecution failed to produce crucial evidence, including a DNA report, to corroborate the allegations—The absence of substantive evidence weakened the prosecution's case—Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Cr.P.C., allows intervention where material irregularities, misreading, or non-reading of evidence occur—The judgments of the lower courts were found unsustainable in light of the compromise and lack of material evidence. -----Cited Cases: Aamir and 2 others v. The State and another (2011 MLD 1468) Ghulam Shabbir and 2 others v. The State (2003 SCMR 663) Ashique Solangi and another v. The State (PLD 2008 Karachi 420) -----Disposition: Revision application allowed—Judgments of the trial and appellate courts set aside—Applicant acquitted of the charge—Bail bonds canceled, and surety discharged.

Summary: Background:Muhammad Saleem (appellant) appealed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian, which convicted him under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for committing sodomy with a minor. The incident allegedly occurred on August 8, 2021, when Saleem, with the assistance of Muhammad Muneeb, lured the 10-year-old victim, M.F., under the pretext of buying milk and then committed the offense in a sugarcane field. The case was registered following the complaint of M.F.'s mother, Parveen Bibi.-----Issues:Whether the FIR lodged by Parveen Bibi was timely and credible given the delay in reporting the incident.The reliability and corroboration of the testimony of a young witness, M.F.The interpretation and application of sections 377, 377A, and 377B of the PPC in the context of sexual offenses, particularly regarding consent and the nature of the act.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The court noted several important points:Timeliness and Credibility of FIR: The delay in lodging the FIR was considered insignificant given the social and psychological implications of reporting sexual crimes against minors.Testimony of Young Witness: M.F.'s testimony was found credible and consistent despite his young age, meeting the criteria under the "voir dire test" which assesses a child's competence to testify.Corroboration of Testimony: The testimonies of M.F., Parveen Bibi (PW-1), and Khadim Hussain (PW-3) were consistent and supported by medical evidence, despite the absence of DNA confirmation. The court emphasized that while DNA evidence is persuasive, its absence does not nullify the credibility of other evidence presented.Legal Interpretation: The court rejected the contention that the case should have been charged under sections 377A/B, focusing instead on the act of sodomy which falls under section 377. The court also addressed the nuances of consent and the legal definitions relevant to sexual offenses against minors.----Citations/Precedents:Sections 375, 376, 377, 377A, and 377B PPC: Pertaining to rape, unnatural offenses, and sexual abuse.Phul Peer Shah v. Hafeez Fatima (2016 SCMR 1225): Conditions required for transactions involving vulnerable parties.Ghulam Muhammad v. Zahoran Bibi and others (2021 SCMR 19): Requirements for proving transactions involving vulnerable individuals.Muhammad Naeem Khan and another v. Muqadas Khan (decd) through L.Rs. and another (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 99): Burden of proof in cases involving pardanashin women.Raja Khurram Ali Khan and others v. Tayyaba Bibi and another (PLD 2020 SC 146): Considerations in child testimony.Atif Zareef and others v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 550): Treatment of victim testimony in sexual offense cases.

Summary: Bail denied ---- Issue:Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature and gravity of the allegations against him.Arguments:For the Petitioner: Emphasized the delay in lodging the FIR and contested the strength of the evidence against the petitioner.For the State and Respondent: Highlighted the serious nature of the allegations, the recovery of incriminating evidence, and the societal impact of the crimes to argue against the grant of bail.Decision:The petition for post-arrest bail was dismissed.Reasoning:The court noted that delays in reporting crimes of a sexual nature, especially involving minors, are not uncommon due to fear, shame, and potential social stigma.The court found sufficient material on record linking the petitioner to the alleged crimes, including the recovery of the mobile device used to record the video and a firearm with ammunition.Given the gravity of the crimes, their impact on the minor victim, and the societal implications, the court deemed the offenses too serious for the grant of bail. --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------- S. 497--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 377& 376--- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act (XIII of 2010), Ss. 43,48 & 53--- Sexual abuse--- Bail, refusal of--- Delayed FIR--- Though there is a delay of about 7/8 months in reporting the matter to the local police, however, delay in such like matter is immaterial for the reason that allegedly the petitioner used to blackmail the complainant for uploading his video on social media which forced him to surrender to his demands for unnatural offences and once he refused to bow down to the demands of the petitioner, he made the video viral on social media and the same was secured through USB. It is also perceivable that a minor who has faced trauma due to an immoral act, try not only to conceal but keep silent due to shame and disgrace in the society, hence delay in lodging the report in the cases pertaining to sodomy or rape could not be considered a material aspect to dislodge the contention of a victim, if other materials are available on record to support the prosecution version. Bail was refused.(Bail Petition dismissed)

Summary: Conviction upheld ---- Background:Imdad Ullah, the appellant, was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian, for sexually abusing a minor, under section 377-B PPC. The complaint originated from an incident reported on February 4, 2021, involving the alleged repeated molestation of a 10-year-old boy in a school setting. The appellant contested the conviction in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, raising issues about the jurisdiction of the trial court and the credibility of the FIR due to an alleged delay in lodging it. He also claimed the charges were instigated by his ex-in-laws as a form of retaliation following a divorce.----Issues:Whether the Additional Sessions Judge had the jurisdiction to hear the case, given the enactment of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021.Whether the delay in lodging the FIR impacts its credibility.Whether the testimony of the child, without conducting a voir dire test, is admissible.Whether the appellant could be convicted based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the child victim.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentencing of Imdad Ullah. The court found that:The trial was appropriately conducted under the jurisdiction of a Special Court as per the Anti-Rape Act, 2021.The delay in reporting the incident was not sufficient to discredit the FIR, given the sensitive nature of child abuse cases.The testimony of the child was admissible without a voir dire test, following established legal standards regarding the competency and reliability of child witnesses.Conviction can rely on the uncorroborated testimony of a child if it appears trustworthy and credible, which was determined to be the case here.----Citations/Precedents:Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021: Establishes the jurisdiction of Special Courts to handle cases like the present one.Piao Gul v. The State [PLD 1960 SC (Pak) 307]: Discussed the implications of misdescribing a court?s role and affirmed that jurisdictional validity does not hinge on such descriptions.R v. DAI [2012] 2 LRC 633: Clarified the competence, admissibility, and evidential weight of testimonies, particularly concerning child witnesses.R v. Marquard [1993] 4 R.C.S. 223: Discussed the standards for evaluating the competency of child witnesses.Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (Articles 3 and 17): Lays down the rules for the competency of witnesses in Pakistan, allowing for children to testify if they understand and respond rationally to questions.Additional ReferencesZahid v. The State (2022 SCMR 50): Examined issues of delay in reporting in child abuse cases.Abdullah Khan v. The Queen, [1990] 2 R.C.S. 531: Discussed the reliability and necessity of hearsay in cases involving children.Raja Khurram Ali Khan and others v. Tayyaba Bibi and another (PLD 2020 SC 146): Highlighted the judicial approach towards evaluating testimony from child victims of crimes.State through Advocate General Sindh v. Farman Hussain and others (PLD 1995 SC 1): Discussed the prudence required when relying on child witness testimony.

Summary: The acceptance of DNA reports is grounded in the doctrine of the law of individuality, which posits that every object, natural or man-made, possesses a unique identity that is not duplicated elsewhere. This principle is exemplified in the field of fingerprint analysis, where no two fingerprints are identical.The passage refers to the case of Regina v. Onufrejczyk (1955), where Lord Goddard, CJ of England, established the principle that the fact of death in a murder trial can be proven through circumstantial evidence. Even in the absence of witnesses or direct evidence, the corpus delicti (body of the crime) can be established through circumstances that leave no room for doubt.In the context of DNA evidence, the doctrine of individuality is complemented by the doctrine of analysis. The latter underscores the importance of impeccable sampling, correct packing, safe custody, and reliable transmission to the expert's office. The passage emphasizes that improper sampling, unsafe custody, or doubtful transmission can undermine the reliability and credibility of a positive DNA report, rendering it unworthy of reliance in legal proceedings. --- The foundation of the "last seen together" theory was based on principles of probability, cause and effect, and required cogent reasons to establish that the deceased was supposed to be with the accused. Critical factors included the proximity of the crime scene, a small time gap between the sighting and the crime, the absence of third-party interference, motive, and the time of the victim's death. However, the circumstance alone did not necessarily implicate the accused; additional evidence connecting them to the crime was deemed crucial.The judgement referenced legal cases to support this theory, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny due to the potential for the fabrication of evidence. It highlighted a case where last seen evidence had to be corroborated by independent sources, as uncorroborated evidence was considered weak in cases involving capital punishment.The judgement then delved into a specific case, scrutinizing the evidence of last seen together and the recovery of the victim's body. It pointed out various shortcomings in the witness testimony, including discrepancies in the time and place of the sighting. It also questioned the delay in reporting the incident and highlighted inconsistencies in the witness's statements during cross-examination.Furthermore, the judgement discussed the recovery of the corpse on the accused's disclosure, emphasizing the legal limitations on using confessions made to the police. It underscored the importance of proper documentation, such as memos, to establish the admissibility of such statements. In this case, the lack of a memo raised doubts about the reliability of the recovery process.The judgement concluded by questioning the evidentiary value of a positive DNA report, highlighting issues related to sampling, custody, and transmission. It argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused, leading to the appeal court's decision to acquit the appellant based on the benefit of the doubt. The death sentence was not confirmed, and the Murder Reference was answered in the negative.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Law – Acquittal Due to Doubtful Prosecution Evidence: ---- Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 377-B – Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt—Prosecution case found doubtful due to inconsistencies in evidence—Delay of one day in lodging FIR without plausible explanation raises suspicion of afterthought—Failure to examine crucial witnesses, including medical officer who conducted the initial examination and local residents who could corroborate the incident, weakens the prosecution case—Absence of seminal evidence on victim’s swab further undermines the prosecution’s version—Reliance placed on Mehmood Ahmed v. The State (1995 SCMR 127), Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772). (b) Delay in Lodging FIR – Presumption Against Prosecution: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Unexplained delay in lodging FIR creates suspicion of fabrication and deliberation—Delay in reporting an incident of a sensitive nature such as sexual assault must be justified by the prosecution—Where delay remains unexplained, courts may infer that time was used for deliberation and false implication—Reliance placed on Mehmood Ahmed v. The State (1995 SCMR 127). (c) Failure to Examine Key Witnesses – Adverse Presumption Against Prosecution: ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Non-examination of essential witnesses, including the primary medical officer and local residents, creates a presumption against the prosecution—Investigation officer admitted to recording statements of local residents but failed to present any in court—Prosecution’s failure to produce available witnesses weakens its case and raises reasonable doubt—Reliance placed on Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772). (d) Lack of Corroborative Medical Evidence – Impact on Conviction: ---- Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 377-B – Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164 Medical evidence failed to support the prosecution’s claim—No seminal material was detected on the victim’s swab, which could have linked the accused to the alleged act—Failure to establish forensic evidence in sexual assault cases casts serious doubt on the prosecution’s version—Reliance placed on Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772). (e) Safe Administration of Justice – Benefit of Doubt to Accused: ---- Islamic and Common Law Principles of Criminal Justice It is a fundamental principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt—Where discrepancies exist in witness testimonies and supporting evidence is lacking, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt—Islamic jurisprudence and criminal law dictate that it is better to acquit ten guilty persons than to convict one innocent person—Reliance placed on Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772). ----Disposition: Appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellant acquitted of all charges—Ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. ----Cited Cases: Mehmood Ahmed v. The State (1995 SCMR 127) Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772)