Death sentence upheld in fifth-grader rape case

The Lahore High Court has upheld the death sentence of a school employee convicted of raping a fifth-grade student on school premises, rejecting the defence's key objections — including delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR).

The court observed that factors such as societal stigma, cultural norms, victim-blaming, concerns about privacy, and lack of support often prevent prompt reporting in sexual assault cases.

A division bench headed by Justice Asjad Javaid Ghural ruled that the death penalty was not only warranted by the brutality of the crime but also necessary to serve as a deterrent.

"The phrase 'no mercy for merciless' comes into play," the bench remarked, emphasising that the severity of the punishment was in accordance with the law and the circumstances of the case.

The court highlighted that the perpetrator was an employee at the same school where the assault occurred and criticised the school principal for failing to take immediate action.

"The victim had informed the principal, who not only remained silent but, as suggested by the record, tried to cover up the incident for reasons best known to her," the bench noted.

In addressing the defense's argument over the delay in registering the FIR, the court cited findings from the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan which state that only about 20% of rape cases are reported in the country.

"In a society where three-fourths of sexual abuse incidents go unreported due to internalised shame, fear of judgment, and concerns over identity, the act of reporting is an exception, not the delay," the court stated.

The defense also pointed to the absence of eyewitnesses and argued that the case relied solely on the victim's testimony. However, the court dismissed this argument, noting that rape is often committed in secrecy and rarely has direct witnesses.

"The victim's testimony was credible and consistent," the bench held, stating that there was no legal requirement for corroboration unless specific circumstances warranted it.

Addressing the lack of DNA evidence, the defense had claimed that the absence of semen stains in the forensic report undermined the prosecution's case. The court found this argument insufficient, explaining that the medical examination had taken place two days after the incident, making it unlikely for such evidence to be detected. Moreover, it ruled that DNA is merely corroborative and not essential when supported by strong ocular and medical evidence.

The court concluded by dismissing the convict's appeal and affirming the trial court's decision to award the death penalty.