• NCSW slams judgement, says prosecution’s findings disregarded • In dissenting note, judge notes delay in reporting sexual assault not fatal to prosecution ISLAMABAD: The recent Sup­reme Court verdict, commuting a rape conviction to a charge of fornication, has sparked considerable controversy, with the National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW) sharply criticising the judgement, and one judge on the bench dissenting from the majority ruling. The NCSW noted with concern that the prosecution’s findings — including investigative evidence and judicial conclusions reached by the trial court and the Lahore High Court (LHC) — were effectively disregarded, resulting in the accused being discharged from the offence of rape. “Such an outcome raises critical questions regarding the adjudication of sexual violence cases and the application of legal standards relating to consent,” the commission regretted. The NCSW also highlighted that consent could not be inferred from silence, delayed reporting, or the absence of physical resistance. “Judicial interpretation must remain informed by the complex realities of trauma, fear, coercion, and power asymmetries that frequently underpin sexual violence,” it added. The NCSW urged the judiciary and all relevant state institutions to ensure that adjudication in cases of sexual violence was firmly grounded in constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, as well as Pakistan’s obligations under international human rights law. “Gender-responsive interpretation of law and survivor-centred judicial reasoning are imperative to prevent re-victimisation and carrying of justice,” the statement said. In this context, the NCSW also reiterated the need for systemic institutional strengthening, which should include increasing the number of gender-based violence (GBV) courts, enhancing technical capacity and specialisation of GBV court staff, appointment of permanent judges along with conducting large-scale sensitisation trainings for justice sector stakeholders. Particular emphasis must also be placed on first responders, especially the police, to ensure survivor-sensitive handling of complaints from the outset, the statement read. Majority verdict In a six-page judgement issued earlier this month, the top court comm­uted the sentence of a convict from 20 years of imprisonment to five after reclassifying the offense from rape to a consensual extramarital affair. Justices Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, who delivered the majority verdict, relied on two factors: a seven-month delay in the complainant registering a rape case and the absence of “healed marks of violence on the entire body of the alleged victim”. The court modified the impugned judgement by setting aside the petitioner’s conviction and sentence under Section 376 PPC, acquitting him of rape, and instead convicting him under Section 496-B PPC for fornication. The court was hearing an appeal filed by Hassan Khan against the Dec 18, 2018 judgement of the LHC, which had dismissed his plea. Dissenting note Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, the third member of the bench, dissented and voted to dismiss the petition by refusing leave to appeal. In his dissenting note, the judge wrote that rape and sexual harassment cases often went unreported in our society as the victims feared the consequences of reporting. “The victim often has to justify to [their] own family members about their character at the time when [they] report … such an incident,” he added. “In the case at hand, the victim is of young age, unmarried, her parents have passed away, she has an elder brother and record also shows evidence of threats forwarded to the victim,” the dissenting note read. It added that it clearly made sense as to “how reluctant a girl would be in these circumstances to share such an unfortunate occurrence with her own brother”. Justice Panwhar observed that de­­lays in reporting sexual assaults to po­­lice were not fatal to the prosecution. Defending the absence of healed marks of violence on victim’s body, the dissenting note stated the accused was carrying a weapon. “Any victim would be reluctant to resist such a perpetrator with a weapon in hand.” The judge observed that a rape victim should not be penalised on “account of ostensible delay in reporting what she has undergone”. “On the contrary, kindness, encouragement, and understanding are the requirements to approbate a victim’s difficult decision to purge the society of perpetrators of such heinous offences,” he added in his dissenting note. Chaudhry Abdul Aziz, a former LHC judge, remarked that apparen­tly the majority judgement had tak­en “a very cautious view” by commuting the sentence of rape into fornication. A good judge had to be very skeptical while deciding cases of rape, he said, adding: “The majority verdict seems to have tried to maintain a balance”. Published in Dawn, December 20th, 2025