Supreme Court Converts Rape Conviction into Consensual Adultery, Reduces Sentence

Supreme Court Converts Rape Conviction into Consensual Adultery, Reduces Sentence

The Supreme Court has converted a rape conviction into a case of consensual adultery, reducing the accused’s sentence from 20 years’ imprisonment to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

Justice Malik Shahzad Khan authored the six-page judgment, while Justice Salahuddin Panhwar dissented.

The court also reduced the fine imposed on the accused from Rs500,000 to Rs10,000. In case of non-payment of the fine, the convict will have to undergo an additional two months in prison. The court held that the case does not constitute rape but consensual adultery, adding that in cases of consensual adultery, the complainant is also liable to punishment.

According to the judgment, the complainant was neither challaned nor given an opportunity to defend herself before the trial court. The Supreme Court observed that punishment cannot be imposed at the appellate stage without granting a hearing. It ruled that the accused could be convicted for a lesser offence—consensual adultery—instead of the graver charge of rape.

The judgment noted that, according to the FIR, the woman had gone to a forest at around 5:30 am to relieve herself. The complainant alleged that the accused, who was lying in wait, raped her at gunpoint. However, the FIR was lodged approximately seven months after the alleged incident.

The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution failed to explain how the accused knew the specific time the complainant would be present in the forest. It further noted that the complainant did not resist at the time of the incident. The medical report showed no signs of violence or injuries. The victim’s clothes were neither produced as evidence nor was it proven that they were torn.

The court also noted that the incident allegedly occurred near a residential area, yet the complainant neither raised an alarm nor sought help. For seven months after the incident, she neither initiated legal action nor informed her family.

Regarding the DNA evidence, the Supreme Court refrained from giving a final ruling, stating that the authenticity of DNA evidence would be determined in another case. It noted that DNA sampling was conducted one and a half years after the incident, whereas medical research journals indicate that reliable DNA results are typically obtained within two weeks.

The court concluded that while sexual intercourse was established through the complainant’s statement and medical evidence, the element of coercion could not be proven. Therefore, the evidence substantiated sexual relations but not rape.