IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 596-L OF 2022 
(Against the judgment dated 24.02.2022 passed by 
the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Cr. Appeal No. 
75142/2019) 
 
Atta ul Mustafa 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
The State and another 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Sohail dar, ASC 
(Via video link from Lahore) 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG Punjab 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
11.08.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner along with co-accused 
was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, pursuant to a 
case registered vide FIR No. 269/2018 under Sections 376-II/337-J PPC at 
Police Station Neikapura, Sialkot for committing zina with the 
complainant. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 19.11.2019 
while acquitting the co-accused, convicted the under Section 376 PPC and 
sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. He was also 
directed to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- or in default whereof to further 
undergo two months SI. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended 
to the petitioner. In appeal the learned High Court maintained the 
conviction and sentences recorded by the learned Trial Court.  
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment 
reads as under:- 
“2. 
As per story narrated by the complainant Mst. Azmat Sultan in her 
written application EX.P.B, 8/10 months ago, accused Ata Mustafa came to 
her house and requested her to resolve the dispute between his father and 
mother as she deal with social welfare work. Then she went to the house of 
Criminal Petition No. 596-L/2022 
-: 2 :-
accused Ata-Ul-Mustafa on his request where she met three ladies namely 
Samina, mother of accused Ata-Ul-Mustafa and Aisha and Khadija, sisters 
of accused Ata-Ul-Mustafa who caused to drink her some intoxicated juice 
and after that she became unconscious. Thereafter complainant was 
shown a blue film which was captured by accused Ata-Ul-Mustafa after 
administering her intoxicating liquid. Thereafter accused Ata-ul-Mustafa 
kept on blackmailing and threatening the complainant, and used to obtain 
money from her on different occasions. On 08.05.2018 at about 3/4:00 
p.m, complainant called accused Ata-Ul-Mustafa on mobile phone and 
requested him to delete her video and pictures as she is having a family. On 
the same day at about 9:00 p.m, accused called the complainant outside 
and with the assurance of deleting the video and pictures, took her to his 
house on a Rickshaw and again administered intoxicating juice to her and 
accused persons Ata-Ul-Mustafa and Habib committed rape with the 
complainant one by one. When complainant gained conscious she found 
herself in Civil Hospital, Sialkot. Then complainant narrated whole story to 
her son and brother-in-law, and also informed the police for taking action.” 
 
3. 
 
After completion of the investigation, report under Section 
173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The prosecution in order 
to prove its case produced seven witnesses. In his statement recorded 
under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the petitioner pleaded his innocence and refuted 
all the allegations leveled against him. However, he did not opt to appear 
as his own witness on oath as provided under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C in 
disproof of the allegations leveled against him. He also did not produce 
any document in his defence.  
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner/convict contended that 
the prosecution case is based on whims and surmises and it has to prove 
its case without any shadow of doubt but it has miserably failed to do so. 
Contends that there is no evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner 
except the solitary statement of the victim. Contends that the medical 
evidence did not corroborate the stance of the victim. Lastly contends that 
the reasons given by the learned High Court to sustain conviction of the 
petitioner are speculative and artificial in nature, therefore, the impugned 
judgment may be set at naught. 
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer has defended the 
impugned judgment. He contended that there is no material contradiction 
in the prosecution evidence and the prosecution has proved its case 
Criminal Petition No. 596-L/2022 
-: 3 :-
beyond any shadow of doubt by producing convincing evidence, therefore, 
the petitioner does not deserve any leniency from this Court.  
6. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the evidence available on the record with their 
able assistance.  
7. 
 
In the present case, the complainant/victim Azmat Sultana, 
who appeared as PW-5 is the star witness of the prosecution. In her 
deposition, she reiterated her stance as narrated in the crime report and 
alleged the petitioner and his co-accused to have committed rape with 
her. By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of 
sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which 
necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should 
find no difficulty to solely rely on the testimony of the victim of a sexual 
assault to convict the accused. However, the strict condition for this is that 
the same shall reflect that it is independent, unbiased and straightforward 
to establish the accusation against the accused and if the court finds it 
difficult to accept victim’s version, it may seek corroboration from some 
evidence which lends assurance to her version. In the present case, we 
have noted that the victim Mst. Azmat Sultana was 49 years of age while 
the petitioner was a young lad of 20 years old at the time of commission of 
the alleged offence. Although it is not impossible that a twenty years old 
boy cannot commit zina with such an older woman but the story told by 
the victim is not plausible. According to her, the petitioner’s mother and 
his two sisters gave her some intoxicating drink, which made her 
unconscious and during this period, the petitioner and his friend 
committed rape with her. It is generally seen in our society that no matter 
how morally bad one is, he cannot do such kind of act in front of his 
mother and sisters. On our specific query, learned Law Officer admitted 
that the story narrated by the victim does not appeal to reason to the 
mind of a prudent man. In such circumstances, this Court is duty bound to 
weigh the other materials and evidence on record to come to the 
conclusion on guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. The victim was 
examined by Dr. Ayesha Aman (PW-1) and as she was admittedly a 
Criminal Petition No. 596-L/2022 
-: 4 :-
married lady, therefore, medico legal report showing her hymen to be old 
ruptured was inconsequential. The blood sample of the victim was taken 
and sent to Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory for forensic toxicology and 
according to the Forensic Toxicology Analysis Report, “Alprazolam” was 
detected in her blood. Alprazolam is used to treat anxiety and panic 
disorder. The same is in a class of medications called ‘benzodiazepines’ 
and it works by decreasing abnormal excitement in the brain. It seems the 
victim was a patient of depression and she had some mental problems. 
The victim had leveled a specific allegation of intoxicating material being 
administered to her but neither anything containing intoxicating material 
was recovered nor any intoxicating material was found in her blood in the 
medico legal report. A bare perusal of record reflects that the victim had 
lodged a similar kind of case against another person but the same ended in 
compromise later on. This conduct of the victim adversely reflects on her 
credibility and does not require a flattering commentary. There is no 
denial to this fact that DNA test report revealed that possibility cannot be 
ruled out that the petitioner is the contributor of the semen detected on 
the vaginal swabs of the victim. It shows that the DNA report is not 
conclusive and certain about the guilt of the petitioner. The victim had 
leveled allegation of rape against two persons but according to the report 
of PFSA the co-accused of the petitioner was eliminated as being the 
contributor of male DNA. This means that whatever the victim said was 
not entirely true. Even otherwise, the DNA report cannot be treated as 
primary evidence and can only be relied upon for the purposes of 
corroboration and as stated above the evidence of the victim is not of such 
character, which can solely be relied upon to sustain conviction of the 
petitioner. When all the above-narrated circumstances are juxtaposed i.e. 
the implausible stance of the victim, her lodging of similar kind of case 
against another person and then patching up the matter after receiving 
hefty amount and the dubious DNA test report, it makes the prosecution 
case not free from doubt. These are the dents, which are so grave and 
sensational that they are squarely hampering the authenticity of the 
prosecution case. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the 
prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate its case.  
Criminal Petition No. 596-L/2022 
-: 5 :-
8. 
 
Mere heinousness of the offence if not proved to the hilt is 
not a ground to punish an accused. It is an established principle of law and 
equity that it is better that 100 guilty persons should let off but one 
innocent person should not suffer. The peculiar facts and circumstances of 
the present case are sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the 
prosecution case, which entitles the petitioner to the right of benefit of 
the doubt. It is a well settled principle of law that for the accused to be 
afforded this right of the benefit of the doubt, it is not necessary that 
there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if there is 
only one doubt, the benefit of the same must go to the accused. 
Reliance is placed on Mst. Asia Bibi Vs. The State (PLD 2019 SC 64), Tariq 
Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Ayub Masih v. The State 
(PLD 2002 SC 1048) and Abdul Jabbar vs. State (2019 SCMR 129). The 
conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable 
evidence. Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to be resolved in favour 
of the accused. However, as discussed above, in the present case the 
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of 
doubt. 
 
9. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition 
into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned judgment. The petitioner 
is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released from jail unless 
detained/required in any other case. The above are the detailed reasons of 
our short order of even date.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
11th of August, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram