ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has rejected the Punjab government’s petition seeking a review of its Dec 2, 2025 verdict that commuted a rape conviction into a charge of fornication — a ruling that sparked considerable controversy, with rights organisations, including the National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW), censuring the verdict.

“Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any material illegality or irregularity in the order under review,” ruled Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan.

Justice Khan was heading a three-judge Supreme Court bench, also comprising Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Shakeel Ahmad, which took up the review petition moved by the Punjab Prosecutor General.

“All the main questions raised in this review petition have already been answered in the impugned order,” stated the one-paragraph order, adding: “Under the circumstances, there is no substance in this review petition; hence, the same is hereby dismissed.”

Upholds five-year sentence after reclassifying rape conviction

Filed by Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab, Ahmad Raza Gilani, the petition under Article 188 of the Constitution had pleaded with the Supreme Court to revisit its Dec 2, 2025 verdict and restore the respondent’s conviction and sentence under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).

“The impugned judgement is profoundly stigmatic, casting a permanent shadow over the victim and her entire family for generations to come,” the review petition had argued, adding that such an approach ran contrary to the principles of justice, dignity and victim protection and, with respect, called for clear judicial disapproval.

Headed by Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, the SC, while hearing an appeal by Hassan Khan against the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) Dec 18, 2018 rejection of his plea, had commuted his sentence from 20 years’ imprisonment to five years after reclassifying the offence from rape to a consensual extramarital affair.

Justice Salahuddin Panhwar had, however, dismissed the appeal, holding that rape and sexual harassment often went unreported in society because victims feared the consequences of reporting such incidents, as they were often required to justify their character to family members when reporting such cases.

On the other hand, the majority judgement had based its decision on technical grounds, stating: “The impugned judgement is modified to the extent that conviction and sentence of the petitioner/appellant under Section 376 (punishment of rape) is set aside and he is acquitted from the charge and instead the petitioner/appellant is convicted under Section 496-B of PPC (fornication) and is sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs10,000 or in default whereof to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.”

The Punjab prosecution department had argued in its review petition that, in cases of sexual violence, delay in reporting the crime and the absence of marks of violence did not carry significant weight.

Citing the 2011 Mukhtaran Mai case, the review petition recalled that the SC had held that delay in reporting rape was natural due to trauma, fear and social stigma and, therefore, did not weaken the prosecution’s case.

Thus, the seven-month delay in reporting the crime in the present case had no material bearing on the prosecution’s case, particularly when it was established on record that a child had been born as a result of the alleged rape.

The review petition pleaded that if the judges in the present case differed from earlier judgements of the SC, it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan for constitution of a larger bench so that an authoritative verdict could be delivered.

The petition regretted that one of the most distressing aspects of the case was that a child had been born as a result of the alleged offence, but the SC had failed to address or clarify the legal and social status of the child.

While imputing criminality to the victim, the Supreme Court had also failed to appreciate the extraordinary hardship faced by the victim’s family in coming forward with a visibly pregnant victim to seek justice, the review petition had pleaded.

The review petition stated that the SC was not empowered to record a conviction in deviation from the prescribed mandatory mode of taking cognisance, but had departed from the mandatory provisions by converting the conviction and sentence under Section 376 to Section 496-B of PPC.

Therefore, the judgement was void ab initio, constituted an error apparent on the face of the record and required rectification under Article 188 of the Constitution governing the court’s review jurisdiction.

Published in Dawn, August 12th, 2026