Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has acquitted a man who spent 12 years in prison on charges of rape of his own daughter, dismissing his life response because of defective and contradictory evidence.
A bench with three members led by Justice Hashim Kakar, made a 10-page judgment, author of Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. The court overturned earlier judgments from the trial and Lahore High Court’s (LHC), which had maintained the verdict.
The order stated that the prosecution’s evidence was discarded when it lacked reliability. “The appellant’s verdict and conviction are set aside. He is released immediately if not required in any other case,” the order reads.
The case dates back to 2010 when the man’s six -year -old daughter accused him of rape.
He was subsequently sentenced to life in prison and fined RS35,000 of a trial. LHC maintained this verdict in 2013.
The Supreme Court’s decision centered on critical discrepancies in the prosecutor’s case. The judge also mentioned that the trial did not set the rationality test to the victim until she registered her statement.
According to the law, a child’s testimony is only allowed if the judge is pleased that the child understands the questions and the duty to speak the truth. “A child is a competent witness if he/she passes on a standard for sufficient maturity for understanding the facts to be told by her,” the decision states.
The court found that the daughter’s declaration contained major contradictions and lacked clarity regarding the date and time of the alleged incident. In addition, the medical evidence was considered inconsistent when the doctor who initially declared rape later refused during a cross -examination.
The order also noted that important witnesses to the prosecution, the complainant’s mother and the motherly uncle, were not eyewitnesses to the alleged crime. Their testimonies were classified as Heardays and are therefore rejected.
A significant factor that came on a record during the case was an ongoing family conflict on inheritance and other domestic issues, which suggested a possible alternative motive behind the claims.
The Supreme Court Bench declared the prosecution who declared the prosecution’s evidence and ordered the defendant to be released immediately if he is not desired in any other case.
