LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has set aside a man’s conviction in a rape and abduction case and extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
The court also held that a decree of jactitation of marriage does not prevent a criminal court from examining whether sexual intercourse was consensual, observing that rape is determined on the basis of absence of consent and not merely on marital status.
A LHC division bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq and Justice Sadiq Mahmood Khurram, made these observations, allowing a criminal appeal filed by one Ghulam Fareed and setting aside his conviction in a rape and abduction case.
The appellant had been convicted by a trial court under Sections 376(i) (rape) and 496-A (abduction) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to 25 years and seven years’ imprisonment, respectively, in both cases.
Observes that the prosecution case suffers from several doubts
The bench examined the legal question of whether a family court decree declaring a claimed marriage void could automatically establish the offence of rape.
The bench said the appellant’s plea that the victim woman had contracted marriage with him cannot be dismissed out of hand.
It noted that the complainant himself (woman’s father) admitted that the appellant had instituted proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights.
In contrast, the prosecution, relying upon a decree of jactitation of marriage, contended that by virtue of such decree the consent of the victim stands extinguished and the offence of rape stands established.
The prosecution further argued that the decree of the family court operates with binding force upon the criminal court, thereby, precluding the high court from embarking upon any inquiry into the question of consent.
Justice Rafiq, the author of the judgement, held that proceedings for jactitation of marriage under the Family Courts Act, 1964 and criminal proceedings under Section 375 PPC operate in different fields.
The judge observed that the absence of marriage does not exhaust the inquiry into consent and that the offence of rape hinges on lack of consent, not marital status.
He ruled that even if a marriage is declared void, the criminal court must independently determine whether the survivor voluntarily consented to sexual intercourse on the relevant occasion.
The judge further held that civil court decrees do not conclusively bind criminal proceedings because the standards of proof are different.
A civil case is decided on a preponderance of evidence, whereas criminal liability requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, the judge added.
The judge noted that treating a jactitation decree as conclusive in criminal trials could allow misuse of civil remedies and potentially shield accused persons from scrutiny regarding consent.
The criminal court, the judge said, must independently assess all relevant evidence under the law.
Justice Rafiq also rejected the prosecution’s argument that even if rape was not proved, the accused could still be convicted for a different sexual offence.He held that the law does not permit conversion of a prosecution from one sexual offence to another merely because evidence suggests a different factual scenario.
While acquitting the appellant, the judge observed that the prosecution case suffered from several doubts, including delay in registration of the FIR, questionable recovery proceedings, inconsistencies in the victim woman’s statement, lack of medical corroboration and the limited evidentiary value of DNA evidence when relied upon alone.
The bench set aside the conviction of the appellant and ordered his release, if not required in any other case.
Published in Dawn, June 26th, 2026