The Sindh High Court has set aside the conviction of five persons in a rape case as the prosecution failed to prove charges against them.
Faizan Ahmed, Mohammad Arsalan, Ali Raza, Mohmmad Waseem and Arshad Ahmed were sentenced to life imprisonment by a South additional district and sessions court for kidnapping and raping a girl in the Mehmoodabad area on March 7, 2025.
According to the prosecution, the complainant, Mohammad Rasheed, lodged an FIR that his daughter Warisha had been kidnapped by Faizan who along with the co-appellant committee her rape on December 16, 2023.
The appellants’ counsel submitted that the statements of the complainant and the prosecution suffered from material contradictions, inconsistencies, significant omissions and subsequent improvements on material particulars of the prosecution story.
They submitted that the FIR had been lodged after an unexplained and inordinate delay of approximately 20 days without furnishing any plausible satisfactory explanation, which caused a serious dent to the prosecution case as it provided sufficient opportunity for deliberation, consultation, fabrication and false implication of the appellant.
They said that the conduct of the complainant also created serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the present case. They said that prior to the registration of the instant FIR, the complainant had lodged a case against his own son-in-law, nephew Umair alleging abduction of his daughter Sania with the intent to commit rape.
They said that evidence led by the prosecution suffered from material gaps and missing links which remained unexplained and the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
The counsel prayed for setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellants by extending them the benefit of the doubt. An additional prosecutor general opposed the appeals and supported the impugned judgment. He argued that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence available on record in its true perspective and recorded conviction after a careful and exhaustive evaluation of the oral, medical and scientific evidence.
He said testimony of the prosecutrix was natural, straightforward and inspired confidence. He said the trial court had assigned cogent and convincing reasons while recording conviction and requested the high court to dismiss the appeals.
A division bench of the SHC comprising Justice Omar Sial and Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi after hearing the arguments observed that the prosecution had failed to furnish any plausible explanation for such prolonged silence by the complainant. The court observed that although delay in reporting cases of sexual offences could not be treated as fatal in every circumstance, the same could not be ignored altogether particularly when the prosecution failed to establish any compelling reason preventing immediate reporting.
The high court observed that the complainant during cross-examination admitted that he had come to know that Faizan had enticed away his daughter, yet he neither disclosed the name of the person who furnished such information nor explained the circumstances in which he acquired that knowledge.
The high court observed that the record further reflected that Faizan was the husband of Rimsha, another daughter of the complainant and the real sister of the alleged victim. The high court observed that there were material contradictions in the recovery of the victim and arrest of the accused and record revealed significant inconsistencies regarding the number of biological samples purportedly collected during the medical examination and the number of samples ultimately forwarded to the forensic laboratory for DNA analysis.
The bench observed that the medical evidence, thus, did not support the prosecution allegation of a recent sexual assault. The SHC observed that the prosecution had also failed to explain the non-production of material witnesses who were admittedly available and whose testimony was essential for arriving at a just and fair decision.
The high court observed that the cumulative assessment of the prosecution evidence revealed that the case was not suffering from mere technical shortcomings but from fundamental defects affecting its very foundation.
The SHC observed that the appellants had been convicted without appreciating the evidence in its true perspective rather the prosecution case was packed with various discrepancies, irregularities, improvements and lacunas, which resulted into extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The high court set aside the convictions passed by the trial court and acquitted the men of charges extending them the benefit of the doubt.
