Summary: Courts must interpret laws in a manner that aligns with legislative intent, particularly under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, which aims to ensure expeditious redressal of sexual violence against women and children. The Act establishes specialized mechanisms, including special courts and investigation units, to expedite trials and prevent delays. Courts are empowered to alter or delete charges during trial based on evidence, ensuring fair trials while prioritizing the Act's objectives. Special laws prevail over general provisions, and procedural amendments operate retrospectively.

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: (a) Jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC): Offenses under Section 376(2) PPC and Section 506-B PPC, even if heinous, do not fall under the definition of terrorism as prescribed in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. As the alleged offense was not linked to acts of terrorism or abduction for ransom, the ATC lacked jurisdiction to try the case. (b) Transfer of Jurisdiction under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021: With the promulgation of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, cases involving offenses listed under Schedule-II of the Act, such as Section 376 PPC, are to be exclusively tried by Special Courts established under the Act. Any such cases pending before other courts, including ATCs, must be transferred to the relevant Special Court. (c) Notification of Special Courts under the Anti-Rape Act, 2021: The Federal Government, via Notification No. S.R.O. 2029(I)/2022, designated Special Courts for trying scheduled offenses under the Act. The case should have been transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Malir, which was the designated Special Court with jurisdiction over the matter. (d) Applicability of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018: The appellants argued for trial under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. However, all Anti-Terrorism Courts in Sindh were designated as Juvenile Courts under Notification No. SOJI/9-2/2018. Thus, juvenile offenders could be tried in ATCs for offenses within their jurisdiction. (e) Distinction Between Heinous Offenses and Terrorism: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has clarified that not all heinous offenses automatically qualify as terrorism. Offenses that do not meet the criteria of terrorism, even if serious, are not triable by ATCs unless specified in the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. (f) Procedural Irregularity in Trial by ATC: The ATC's continuation of trial and conviction post-notification of Special Courts under the Anti-Rape Act, 2021, was deemed procedurally improper. The trial should have been transferred upon notification of jurisdiction under the Act. (g) Setting Aside of Conviction and Sentence: The appellants' conviction and sentence by the ATC were set aside due to lack of jurisdiction. The case was ordered to be transferred to the relevant Special Court for trial. (h) Bail Applications: The appellants, who were on bail prior to the ATC's judgment, were granted the right to file bail applications before the transferee Special Court, which must decide them on merit. -----Disposition The appeal was allowed. The judgment and sentence passed by the ATC were set aside, and the case was directed to the Special Court notified under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, for trial in accordance with the law.

Summary: (a) Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 ----S. 9---Special Sexual Offences Investigation Units (SSOIUs)---Scope and composition---Whether investigation must be conducted by an entire unit or an individual member of the unit---Interpretation. Under Section 9 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, Special Sexual Offences Investigation Units (SSOIUs) are established in every district to handle sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) cases. The provision stipulates that these units should include trained officers, with preferably one female member. The court clarified that the Act does not mandate collective investigation by the entire unit for each case. Instead, investigations can be conducted by an individual officer who is a member of the SSOIU, provided they are duly trained and competent. Mandating collective investigation by the entire unit would create practical inefficiencies and delay the objectives of the Act, which aims for speedy investigation and trial. ----Cited Cases: Sumaira v. The State and others (2023 LHC 4535) Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan (PLD 1972 SC 279) (b) Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021: ----S. 9(2) & S. 9(3)---SSOIU composition---Role of female police officers---Flexibility in unit formation. The Anti-Rape Act emphasizes the role of female police officers in handling sexual offence investigations, stating that one member of the SSOIU shall preferably be a female officer. However, the word "preferably" indicates flexibility and does not impose an absolute requirement. The investigation by an SSOIU officer is valid even if conducted independently, as long as the officer is duly trained in investigating sexual offences. ----Cited Cases: Kamil Khan Mumtaz v. Province of Punjab (PLD 2016 Lahore 699) (c) Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021: ----S. 10---Connected offences---Scope and interpretation. Section 10 of the Anti-Rape Act, which allows investigation of offences connected with scheduled offences, was transcribed from the earlier Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Ordinance, 2020. While the Ordinance mandated investigation by a Joint Investigation Team (JIT), the Act transitioned to SSOIUs. Therefore, Section 10 must be interpreted in the context of the Act's structure, allowing flexibility for either SSOIU members or a JIT (if specifically constituted) to investigate connected offences. (d) Investigation Procedure---SSOIU vs. JIT---Distinction in roles and purpose: SSOIUs are specialized investigation units operating within a single law enforcement agency, focusing on sexual offences under the Anti-Rape Act. In contrast, Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) are cross-agency collaborative entities formed to handle sensitive and complex cases that may span multiple jurisdictions. The Anti-Rape Act does not prohibit forming a JIT for a specific case, but investigations can also be carried out by trained SSOIU members individually. ----Cited Cases: Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan (PLD 1972 SC 279) (e) Administration of Justice---Legislative Intent---Preamble as an interpretative tool: The preamble of the Anti-Rape Act highlights the intent to ensure expeditious investigation and trial of sexual offences through specialized mechanisms. While not an operative part of the statute, the preamble serves as a key to understanding legislative intent, emphasizing efficiency, victim-centric approaches, and resource optimization in handling sexual offence cases. ----Cited Cases: Ummatullah v. Province of Sindh (PLD 2010 Karachi 236) (f) Investigation Competency---SSOIU Member's Authority: An officer who is a member of an SSOIU and possesses the requisite training is competent to investigate offences under the Anti-Rape Act independently. The law does not require the entire unit to be involved in every investigation. ----Disposition: 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: ''Discussion: (1) Dishonest investigation (2) Section 166, 375, 376 & 511 P.P.C. (3) Role of I.O. (4) Section 4 (l) Cr.P.C. read with Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 (5) Section 22 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 (6) Rule 2 (v) of the Sindh Police (E & D) Rules, 1988 (7) Article 4 & 155 of Police Order 2002.'' --- Facts: The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Investigation Wing of Police Station Mominabad, District West, Karachi, was assigned to investigate a rape case involving a minor victim. The petitioner was alleged to have improperly reduced the charge from rape to attempted rape despite substantial evidence confirming the rape, including medical reports and eyewitness accounts. This led to the issuance of a show cause notice, and subsequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The departmental appeal and subsequent appeal to the Sindh Service Tribunal were both dismissed.----Issue: The main issue was whether the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, including his dismissal from service for allegedly converting a rape charge to an attempted rape charge in the investigation, was justified.----Holding: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner was justified based on the overwhelming evidence indicating misconduct in the investigation. The court found no illegality or perversity in the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal.----Reasoning: The court emphasized the crucial role of an Investigation Officer in the criminal justice system and the need for conducting investigations with integrity, impartiality, and in accordance with the law. Given the clear medical evidence and eyewitness accounts establishing the commission of rape, the court found no justification for the petitioner's decision to alter the charge. The court also highlighted the importance of discipline and integrity in the police force and upheld the disciplinary action as being conducted in compliance with due process.----Disposition: The Civil Petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, thereby upholding the disciplinary action against the petitioner, including his dismissal from service. The court's findings were limited to the disciplinary action and did not affect ongoing proceedings related to the original FIR in the rape case, which was to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with the law.

Summary: Bail granted ----- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 377-B & S. 506(ii)---Post-arrest bail---Sexual abuse of a minor---Scope---Petitioner was accused of attempting sexual abuse of a minor aged 7/8 years and threatening the complainant with a weapon. The investigation revealed no medical examination or conclusive evidence of sexual abuse beyond an allegation of kissing the minor. Held, under S. 377-B, the offense of sexual abuse is broadly defined to include acts such as fondling and other explicit conduct, with severe punishments prescribed. However, given the limited evidence and the discretionary nature of bail under S. 497(2) Cr.P.C., a ground of further inquiry emerged. Cited Cases: • Fida Ahmad v. The State 2020 YLR (N) [Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court] 153 • Muhammad Makki v. The State and another 2010 PCr.L.J [Lahore] 1482 • Aziz Khan and another v. The State and another 2004 PCr.L.J [Peshawar] 490 • Muhammad Akbar v. The State 1987 MLD [Lahore] 3096 • Syed Azmat Hussain Shah v. The State 2009 PCr.L.J [Islamabad] 780 • Mukhtar Ahmad and others v. The State 1999 PCr.L.J [Lahore] 1107 (b) Anti-Rape (Investigation & Trial) Act, 2021 ----S. 8, S. 21---Prohibitory and preventive measures---Protection of victim and community---Post-arrest bail was granted with strict conditions, including maintaining distance from the victim and his family, and the imposition of prohibitory orders under the Anti-Rape Act to prevent contact with children or engaging in activities involving children. SHO was directed to provide protection to the victim and community under S. 8(1)(viii) and S. 21 of the Act, ensuring confidence restoration in the victim's family and community safety from potential future harm. (c) Child Rights and International Conventions ----Child protection measures---Incorporation of international principles---Court emphasized adherence to the Child Rights Convention (CRC) and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Recommendations such as mandatory restraining orders, monitoring, and other protective measures akin to the UK's Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) were highlighted to safeguard children and prevent reoffending. (d) Judicial Discretion---Public Policy Considerations ----Non-compoundable offense---Post-arrest bail---Scope of compromise---While the offense under S. 377-B is non-compoundable, the court, considering the compounding statement of the complainant and the circumstances of the case, deemed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated, especially when the investigation was complete. Disposition: Post-arrest bail granted subject to conditions, including undertaking by the petitioner’s parents to ensure no contact with the victim or their family, and protective measures imposed to safeguard the community and prevent future abuse. Police directed to enforce measures under the Anti-Rape Act, 2021, and Ministry of Law instructed to frame rules for prevention, protection, and rehabilitation under S. 19 of the Act.

Summary: Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021: Obligations of the State and the rights of the victims

Summary: Anti-Rape (Investigation & Trial) Ordinance, 2020

Summary: (a) Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 ----Ss. 9 & 10---- Police Order, 2002 ----Art. 18-A(5)(a)---- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ----Ss. 154, 161 & 164-A---- Investigation of Scheduled Offences---Special Sexual Offences Investigation Unit (SSOIU)---Interpretation of S. 9 of the Anti-Rape Act---Whether investigation must be conducted collectively by entire SSOIU or may be undertaken by an individual officer from the unit---Scope---Petitioner alleged rape and associated offences, FIR registered---Investigation initially assigned to ASI, later transferred by District Police Officer on recommendation of District Standing Board to a female Sub-Inspector trained in sexual offences investigation---Petitioner contended that under S. 9, Anti-Rape Act, offences must be investigated by entire SSOIU collectively, and not by a single officer---Held, S. 9 mandates that investigation of offences in Schedule-I be conducted by SSOIU, but does not prescribe precise composition or require collective participation of all members in every case---Two possible interpretations: (i) entire unit must act collectively; (ii) any individual officer within SSOIU may conduct investigation---First interpretation impractical and contrary to object of expeditious investigation and trial; second interpretation pragmatic, consistent with resource allocation and statutory purpose---No prohibition on forming special teams or including multiple officers if circumstances demand---Use of the word “preferably” regarding inclusion of female officers indicates legislative flexibility---Maryam Rani/SI, being trained and a member of SSOIU, held competent to investigate. Cited Cases: • Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan PLD 1972 SC 279 • Mst. Ummatullah v. Province of Sindh PLD 2010 Karachi 236 • Kamil Khan Mumtaz v. Province of Punjab PLD 2016 Lahore 699 • Sumaira v. The State 2023 LHC 4535 • Babar v. The State 2020 SCMR 761 (b) Statutory interpretation ----Preamble---- Role and relevance---Preamble is integral in discerning legislative intent, acting as a guide to interpret statutory provisions in context of the whole enactment---Preamble to Anti-Rape Act reflects legislative resolve to address sexual and gender-based violence through specialised investigation units and special courts to ensure expeditious, victim-centred justice---Interpretation of S. 9 must align with this object and avoid constructions that frustrate legislative purpose. (c) Joint Investigation Team (JIT) v. Investigation Unit Conceptual distinction---JITs are collaborative, multi-agency entities for specific cases, whereas investigation units operate within a single law enforcement agency and specialise in particular crime categories---Anti-Rape, 2020 envisaged JIT for certain offences; Anti-Rape Act, 2021 consciously replaced JIT model with SSOIUs, indicating intent not to require collective investigation by entire unit in all cases---S. 10 of the Act, derived from Ordinance, to be interpreted as applying to JITs constituted in exceptional circumstances. (d) Police procedure Victim-sensitive investigation---Where victim is woman or child, legislative intent supports involvement of female officer in investigation to ensure comfort, dignity, and prevent re-traumatisation---Association of female officers encouraged though not mandatory---SSOIU framework permits flexibility in composition subject to staffing and resource considerations. Disposition: Petition dismissed; order transferring investigation to trained female Sub-Inspector upheld; individual officer from SSOIU competent to investigate Scheduled Offences under Anti-Rape Act.