SC seeks clarity on DNA evidence in rape conviction

Bench examines evidence in case involving victim with hearing, speech impairments

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has sought further assistance from lawyers on three key legal questions in a unique rape case involving a 25-year-old woman with hearing and speech impairments, including whether an accused can be convicted solely on the basis of DNA evidence.

A division bench comprising Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad on Tuesday took up an appeal filed against conviction and sentencing of a man in a rape case.

During the hearing, Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan observed that the high court had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment relying on the DNA report, while also describing the victim as mentally disabled in its judgment.

The accused's counsel argued that the woman had not personally recorded a statement before the trial court, which had instead relied on the testimony of her mother. He also cited a previous Supreme Court judgment holding that a conviction could not be based solely on a DNA match.

Justice Shakeel Ahmad observed that the facts of the cited judgment differed from those of the present case. According to the accused's counsel, the woman complained of abdominal pain to her mother during the fifth month of pregnancy. A subsequent medical examination revealed that she was pregnant.

The victim's counsel, meanwhile, informed the court that the DNA test of the child had matched the accused. The counsel also told the court that the accused was both her neighbour and maternal uncle.

Justice Shakeel Ahmad observed that experts were summoned under Supreme Court precedents to interpret the statements of persons with hearing and speech impairments. Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan noted that the woman's mother had stated that her daughter identified the accused in the presence of two witnesses.

He observed that if the woman could identify the accused, it prima facie raised a question about the assertion that she had a mental disability. Justice Shakeel Ahmad, however, stressed the importance of examining the victim's capacity to understand and communicate what had happened to her.

The bench later sought assistance from the lawyers on three questions: whether a conviction could be based solely on DNA evidence; whether the woman had only hearing and speech impairments or also a mental disability; and why no expert had been summoned to interpret her communication during the trial. The court adjourned the hearing after seeking further assistance on these legal issues.