ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a man accused of incest, observing that such grave allegations require a higher standard of proof supported by credible prosecution witnesses.
“A rare allegation of one of the most serious offences committed in the presence of other children and old father of the convict in the house had been levelled,” observed a 10-page judgement authored by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi.
“According to the victim herself, she was beaten by the appellant, therefore her statement is to be weighed with due care and caution,” observed Justice Najafi, who was member of a three-judge bench headed by Justice Mohammad Hashmi Khan Kakar.
The bench had taken up a petition of the man, challenging the March 17, 2020, high court verdict that upheld life imprisonment to the petitioner along with payment of a fine of Rs35,000.
The prosecution case against the appellant was that on Oct 2, 2010 his minor daughter informed her mother/the complainant and her maternal uncle that her father had committed rape with her. The matter was then reported to the police and after obtaining permission from the concerned magistrate a medical examination on the victim was conducted and the FIR registered.
After the appellant’s arrest, the report under section 173 CrPC was submitted to the trial court, where he was indicted. However, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution produced both documentary as well as oral evidence and tendered report of chemical examiner. The trial court relied upon the statement of the victim and the corroborated medical report to convict the petitioner on Sept 28, 2013, which the high court upheld.
Justice Najafi in his judgement noted that the complainant was still the “wedded wife of the appellant though she had already filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband after a quarrel when she went to the house of her father, which was just adjacent to the house of her husband.
“The statement of the victim recorded without certification of the presiding officer about the capacity of the child created doubt about her credibility and, therefore, requires strong corroboration,” the judgment said.
Even otherwise, her statement reveals that she was beaten and threatened in the presence of her maternal grandfather and brother but no one objected. According to the complainant, the victim was taken to hospital where she was examined in her presence.
“However, the doctor’s opinion is self-contradictory as in her examination in chief, she stated that the victim was subjected to rape but in the cross-examination she categorically stated that on the basis of the chemical examiner’s report no rape was found to have been committed with her,” the judgement said.
“This leaves the court to a serious question on the credibility of the statement of the victim and the possibility of false implication of the appellant,” the judgment said.
IHC grants bail to Nescom official
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has granted post-arrest bail to an official of the sensitive national organisation, Nescom, who was accused of raping his three-year-old daughter.
The decision was handed down by Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri. The petitioner, a BS-19 officer, had been behind bars for over three months since the registration of an FIR at Shalimar Police Station, Islamabad, on March 23, 2025.
The complainant, the child’s mother, alleged that the suspect had sexually abused their minor daughter. However, the court noted several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case during the bail proceedings.
The medical report from the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) stated that the history of abuse was solely based on the mother’s account and explicitly mentioned that the findings were “not valid for Court.”
A subsequent medical examination failed due to the non-cooperative attitude of the child, and the medico-legal report noted no physical signs of abuse, such as abrasions, bruising, or bleeding.
The court observed that the allegations were narrated to the doctors by the complainant and that no psychological examination of the accused was conducted by the investigating authorities.
Justice Jahangiri also highlighted the existence of an ongoing family dispute, noting that the couple was undergoing divorce proceedings and that the complainant had previously been divorced.
In its order, the court referenced Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows for bail in non-bailable offences if there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the accused’s guilt.
The judgment cited several superior court precedents, including Jahanzeb and others Vs State (2021 SCMR 63), emphasising that bail is a matter of custody, not punishment, and that the court must avoid a detailed evidence assessment at the pre-trial stage.
Consequently, the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a surety bond of Rs100,000 (One Hundred Thousand Rupees) to the satisfaction of the trial court. The court cautioned that the bail concession could be revoked under Section 497(5) of the CrPC if misused or if it delays the trial.
Published in Dawn, August 29th, 2025
