ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a person of charge of rape case but convicted him for fornication (Zina) with consent, sentencing him to five-year rigorous imprisonment.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan and comprising Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbassi and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar heard the appeal of petitioner Hassan Khan against the judgment of Lahore High Court.
The court modified the judgment of Lahore High Court, setting aside it to the extent whereby the petitioner was sentenced and convicted for rape case under Section 376 PPC.
The court had heard the case on December 2, 2025.
The court by a majority 2-1 after allowing the appeal, acquitted the petitioner of the said charge but convicted him for fornication punishable under Section 496-B PPC, sentencing him to five-year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default whereof to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar dissented with the majority judgment, refusing the leave to appeal.
“We have come to this irresistible conclusion that it is not a case of rape as envisaged under Section 376 PPC, rather it is a case of fornication i.e. Zina with consent punishable under Section 496-B PPC”, says a six-page judgment, authored by Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan.
The court held that the prosecution case to the extent of allegation of sexual intercourse with the complainant has also been supported by the medical evidence brought on the record through Dr Ruqia Asim (PW-6)
“We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution has proved its case to the extent of offence of Zina with consent (fornication) punishable under Section 496 PPC against the petitioner beyond the shadow of any doubt”, says the judgment.
As per the case Hassan Khan, the petitioner was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kallur Kot, in a case registered vide FIR No 293 dated 06.10.2015 under Section 376 PPC at Police Station Jandan Wala, District Bhakkar.
The learned trial court vide its judgment dated 20.07.2017 convicted the petitioner under Section 376 PPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years.
He was also directed to pay an amount of Rs500,000 as compensation to the victim or, in case of default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Benefit of Section 382-B CrPC was also extended in favour of the petitioner.
The learned High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the judgment of the trial court.
As per contents of the FIR, Farhat Bibi, complainant, alleged that about seven months prior to the registration of FIR, she went out of her house towards a nearby forest over call of nature at 05:30am. The petitioner was already hiding there forest, who raped her at gunpoint.
“It is not understandable that as to how the petitioner knew that the complainant would come in the aforementioned forest on the day of occurrence at 05:30am and the prosecution case in this respect is completely silent”, says the judgment.
Moreover, the court noted that no resistance was offered by the complainant at the time of occurrence adding that the medical officer did not note any healed mark of violence on the entire body of the alleged victim.
“Even the clothes of the alleged victim were not produced before the police or before the trial court to show that the same were torn at the time of occurrence and it shows that the alleged victim did not offer any resistance”, says the judgment.
The court noted that the prosecution evidence shows that the occurrence took place near the house of the complainant near a residential area but no hue and cry was raised by her to attract the people of the area to save her.
“It is also noteworthy that after the occurrence, the alleged victim came back to her house where her brother and other family members were admittedly living but she remained silent for almost seven months”, says the judgment.
The court further noted that the silence of the complainant for a seven months speaks volumes against her conduct, therefore, the rape story narrated by the complainant cannot be relied upon blindly.
“It is true that a pistol was allegedly recovered on the pointing out of the petitioner but the said pistol was not used during the occurrence”, says the judgment, adding that the pistol was recovered from a residential house and no witness of the locality was associated during the recovery proceedings, which is violative of the provisions of Section 103 CrPC, hence, the said recovery cannot be relied upon.
The court held that the evidence of the complainant to the extent of commission of illicit intercourse with her by the petitioner is established in this case.
The court noted that the evidence of the complainant to the said extent remained unshaken during cross-examination and the same is confidence inspiring.
