Rape prosecution: ‘CII observation on DNA test defies logic’

The CII gave such urgency to its recommendation as if DNA testing was a great threat to Islam, says Asma Jahangir.


Our Correspondent June 01, 2013
CII's observations on admissibility of DNA evidence shows that its members are either keen to protect rapists or are anti-women, says Asma Jahangir. PHOTO: EXPRESS

LAHORE:


Former Supreme Court Bar Association president Asma Jahangir said on Friday the Council of Islamic Ideology’s (CII) observations on admissibility of DNA evidence went to show that its members were either keen to protect rapists or were anti-women.


Council members on Wednesday were reported to have said that DNA tests were not admissible as main evidence in rape cases. They had observed that the tests could, at best, serve as supplementary evidence.

Jahangir said the CII members’ logic was beyond comprehension. She said the council members were refusing to reach out for the truth in rape cases and had given such urgency and prominence to their recommendation as if acceptance of DNA testing was a great threat to Islam.



She said the members had defied logic in undermining forensic reports in cases of rape and paternity disputes.

She said governments should take appointments to the CII seriously and not fill them with “women haters.”

She said interpreting religion was a serious matter and should not be left in the hands of those who made a mockery of their positions.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 1st, 2013.

COMMENTS (36)

Amused | 8 years ago | Reply

"If that zani could not get punishment in this world, he shall get lasting punishment in life hereafter."

The Russians czars used their peasants and serfs cruelly. The hungry masses were placated with a promise that the Moon was actually a large pie which they would receive one day to eat their fill. It is a centuries old trick to fool the weak when denying them justice in this world to promise them pie in the sky.

Zana is not being dscussed, it is rape we are talking about. The first one is a sin, the second is a crime.

G.Farid | 8 years ago | Reply What about video evidence of fornification collected can replace four witnesses or not?
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

E-Publications

Most Read