Muhammad Imran v The State 2024 SCP 226 (case concerning reliance on DNA report to prove rape charge)

Case name and citation

Case name:

Muhammad Imran v The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore and another

Citation: 

2024 SCP 226

Citation Breakdown:

• 2024    Year
• SCP     Supreme Court of Pakistan
• 226      Case number

Court and judges

Court:

Supreme Court of Pakistan

Judge(s): 

Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik J.

Parties:

Plaintiff: Muhammad Imran

Respondent: The State through Advocate General

Material Facts:

The prosecution’s case, as outlined in the First Information Report (FIR), states that on July 11, 2016, at 8:00 p.m., Mumtaz Bibi (Complainant) was at her brother Muhammad Zaman’s house when Muhammad Imran (Petitioner), a frequent visitor and friend of her brother, arrived while she was alone. Imran bolted the outer gate, forcibly took her to the bedroom, and raped her. Upon her cries for help, the prime witnesses Muhammad Waseem Akram and her brother Muhammad Zaman arrived, and she recounted the incident to them. She filed a police report the same night, leading to a medical examination by Dr. Nayab Arshad, who collected samples for a DNA test, which later confirmed the rape.

The Petitioner was arrested on October 21, 2017, and subsequently tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar. On July 11, 2019, the trial court convicted him of rape. It sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100,000 (or six months in default) under Section 376 PPC, and 2 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000 (or three months in default) under Section 449 PPC, with sentences to run concurrently and benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. The Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, upheld the conviction and sentence on May 17, 2023. The court dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal, citing the Complainant’s consistent testimony and corroborating medical and DNA evidence. The court found no evidence of consensual intercourse. It concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove his claim that the Complainant falsely accused him due to his refusal to marry her.

Questions of laws/ issues 

• Proving the offense of rape
• Given a positive DNA Report, this Court has imputed consent on behalf of the Complainant and subjected the Petitioner to a conviction under Section 496-B of the PPC.

Decision 

The Complainant has made out a case of rape against the Petitioner and the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the High Court in this case were correct.

Ratio 

There is no uniform or predictable response from a victim in a case of rape, and there is no standardized behavior after the incident that would serve as evidence against the victim. Moreover, the widely established DNA test proves the occurrence of Rape.

Detailed Reasoning

In this case, under Section 375 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)[1], rape is defined as sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, without her consent, or with consent obtained through fear, deception, or if the woman is under sixteen. Evidence required for proving rape includes showing that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse against her will and without consent. The Supreme Court has established DNA evidence as highly reliable and conclusive for identifying perpetrators in rape cases, as seen in the Ali Haider[2] and Salman Akram Raja[3] cases. DNA tests, akin to fingerprints, significantly increase the likelihood of conviction by clearly indicating sexual contact between the suspect and the victim.

The court also considers the victim’s testimony sufficient for conviction if it is trustworthy, consistent, and reliable, even without corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court of India in the Gurmit Singh case[4] supports this view, stating that a victim’s credible testimony alone can convict an accused. Marks of violence are not essential to prove rape, and the absence of such marks does not undermine the victim’s claim, especially if medical evidence confirms sexual intercourse. The victim’s character or reputation is irrelevant in rape trials, and physical resistance need not be demonstrated[5], as responses to trauma vary among individuals[6]. This shift in jurisprudence emphasizes relying on the victim’s statement and scientific evidence while rejecting stereotypical assumptions and arguments.

The offense of rape impacts the victim uniquely, and responses to such trauma are subjective, ranging from fight, flight, to freeze reactions. This variability underscores that there is no standardized way victims should respond to rape.

Reasoning in the Original Judgement:

According to the majority opinion, the Complainant did not establish a case of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC), but rather a case of fornication under Section 496-B of the PPC.  The reason for this judgment is that the Petitioner was unarmed and a non-consenting female would have shown strong resistance, resulting in marks on her body.

Conclusion

This dissenting opinion of Justice Ayesha Malik, serves as a critical point to analyze the law of evidence in rape cases, particularly, concerning stereotypical narratives attached to a victim of rape and its surrounding misunderstandings. This view, alongside other misconceptions, successfully quashes the idea of silence amounting to consent in rape. The use of psychological narratives and studies plays a pivotal role in making the judicial environment more accepting and comfortable for victims of rape which would consequently lower the high evidentiary standard (which is based on taboos) and encourage victims of rape to report such cases.

[1] Section 375 of the PPC was amended by the Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021. Still, the said amended provision is not relevant to this case because, at the time of the commission of the offense reported by the Complainant, the prior provision of Section 375 of the PPC was in-field.

[2] Ali Haider v. Jameel Hussain (PLD 2021 SC 362)

[3] Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab (2013 SCMR 203)

[4] The State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (AIR 1996 SC 1393)

[5] Atif Zareef v. the State (PLD 2021 SC 550)

[6] Dr. Lori Haskell & Dr. Melanie Randall, Impact of Trauma on Adult Sexual Assault Victims: What the Criminal Justice System