In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of Pakistan recently delved into the delicate distinction between a horrific crime and a voluntary act. The case involved serious allegations of abduction and rape. However, the Court’s careful analysis of the evidence ultimately transformed the narrative, highlighting the critical importance of proving consent in rape cases.
The Case That Sparked the Debate
The story began with a father’s frantic report to the police. He claimed that in the early hours of August 13, 2013, several individuals abducted his daughter, Mst. Aqsa Riaz, from their home’s roof. The FIR alleged they took her jewelry and cash. Later, the accusation emerged that the main petitioner, Asif Masih, had raped her. Consequently, a trial led to severe sentences: Asif Masih received 25 years for rape, while others faced life imprisonment for abduction.
Unraveling the Narrative: Inconsistencies and Afterthoughts
On appeal, the Supreme Court meticulously scrutinized the evidence. The justices immediately identified major flaws in the prosecution’s story of forcible abduction. For instance, the original FIR never mentioned any weapons being used. Surprisingly, the alleged abductee later testified in court about a pistol-point abduction. This new detail was a glaring inconsistency not found in the initial report.
Furthermore, the Court found the witnesses’ behavior unbelievable. A close relative claimed he saw the abduction happen at 4:30 AM but did nothing to stop it or even raise an alarm. This complete lack of reaction struck the Court as highly unnatural and damaged the prosecution’s credibility.
The Crucial Evidence of Consent
The most damning evidence against the forcible rape story came from the alleged victim herself. Under cross-examination, Mst. Aqsa Riaz made a startling admission. She revealed that during her stay in a protective shelter, she appeared before a magistrate several times. Crucially, she never once told the magistrate about her abduction or rape.
This admission led the Court to a powerful conclusion. The story of forcible abduction and rape was not the truth but an afterthought concocted after she returned to her family over a year later. The medical evidence supported this, showing no signs of violence on her body. The lack of recovered stolen property further weakened the case for a violent crime.
From Forcible Rape to Consensual Zina
The Court acknowledged one undeniable fact: a DNA test confirmed Asif Masih as the biological father of her child. The question was not about the intercourse but its nature. Given the complete collapse of the abduction and force narrative, the Court found that the relationship was consensual.
Therefore, the charges of forcible abduction and rape did not apply. Instead, the act fell under a law dealing with fornication with consent. The Court emphasized that for a voluntary relationship, this is the appropriate legal designation.
The Court’s Final Decision and Its Implications
Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court made the following rulings:
- It acquitted two petitioners completely, ordering their immediate release. The Court found no reliable evidence that they committed any abduction.
- It set aside Asif Masih’s 25-year rape sentence. However, because the DNA proof confirmed the willing participation, it convicted him for a lesser offence. The Court sentenced him to five years of imprisonment, a term he had likely already served.
The Court also clarified that the woman could not be charged retroactively. Since the state never accused her during the trial, she was denied a full chance to defend herself.
Conclusion: The Paramount Importance of Evidence
This judgment is a powerful reminder that the law must follow evidence, not emotion. The Supreme Court prioritized facts over a compelling story to ensure justice was served correctly. It underscores that not every illicit relationship is a violent crime. Distinguishing between a mutual agreement and coercion is fundamental to upholding true justice and preventing the misuse of severe criminal laws. This ruling protects individuals from wrongful convictions based on stories that change and evidence that fails to prove force.
For professional assistance with criminal law services and related legal matters, contact:
Muhammad Amin, Advocate
📞 Phone: 0313-9708019 | 0335-1990495
📧 Email: muhammadaminadvo111@gmail.com