Heinous crime: LHC upholds child rapist’s sentence

LAHORE:

Lahore High Court on Friday upheld a sentence of 20-years imprisonment for a man convicted of rape of a child. The court also ordered him to pay Rs1 million to the child born out of rape.

Justice Anwarul Haq of the LHC dismissed the convict’s appeal and said, “I am of the considered view that the baby girl born as a result of the crime committed by the convict will suffer mental anguish and psychological damage her whole life. She is, thus, under the law, entitled to compensation.”

The court ruled that after the compensation is realised, it will be deposited in the child’s name as Defence Saving Certificates. The amount will go to her once she attains the age of majority.

The judge said the Rs100,000 fine, ordered by the trial court, if realised, will be paid to the rape victim.

He said under Islamic law, a child born out of the wedlock or as an outcome of rape, had no legal relationship with the biological father as far as his inheritance was concerned. However, he said, such child had the right to life which would be protected by its biological parents and the state.

The victim’s complaint filed with Sargodha police on August 23, 2010, filed a week after the incident, says she was alone at home when convict Muhammad Nadeem broke into her house and threatened to kill her if she screamed. She said he raped her on several occasions and she became pregnant. The area magistrate ordered a medical examination as well.

Nadeem was arrested on October 14, 2010.

The DNA examination revealed that Nadeem was the unborn child’s biological father. An additional district and sessions judge sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment and fined him Rs100,000.

Appearing before the LHC, counsel for the convict said the FIR pointed towards consensual sex, not rape.

He said, therefore, this should be seen as a case of fornication, the maximum sentence for which is five years imprisonment.

The prosecutor argued that under Section 375 (v) of the Pakistan Penal Code, it was clear that even consensual sex with a woman under the age of 16 years was rape.

He said that the prosecution had proven its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and the trial court had already taken a lenient view by not awarding the convict the death sentence. He requested the court not to show the convict further leniency.

The judge held that the definition of rape in Section 375 of PPC reflected that even ‘consent’ obtained by threatening the victim was a rape offence.

“I have noticed that at the time of recording evidence in the court, the trial court had mentioned the age of the victim as 14 or 15 years,” the judge said.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 8^th, 2015.