Case Note: Shahzad Ahmad v. The State and Another [Criminal Appeal No.294/2022 & Jail petition No. 302/2022 (IHC-Islamabad)]

Authors

  • Dr. Usman Hameed Professor of Criminology at the University of Lahore
  • Dr. Saira Bashir Dar Assistant Professor, Law School, Bahria University Islamabad
  • Ali Shahid Lecturer in Law, Grand Asian University, Sialkot
  • Sadia Saeed Assistant Professor, Superior Law College, Lahore

Abstract

This case note will analyze a recent judgment authored by Justice Babar Sattar of Islamabad High Court (IHC) on the topic of ‘Rape’. The 31 page judgment in addition to delineating ingredients of the crime sets forth evidentiary requirements to prove the crime.  At the outset, the judgment casts light on the meaning of the term ‘consent’ in connection with rape.  Next, it draws a distinction between submission/ non- resistance and consent. Based on this, it concludes that consent in rape cases cannot be presumed merely by absence of marks of struggle. Finally, the judgment reiterates the well-established principle of law that DNA is a confirmatory evidence which may provide corroboration to substantive oral evidence.  However, on its own it should not be made basis of conviction.

Key words: Rape, consensual sex, DNA evidence, Burden of proof, struggle marks.

Downloads

Published

2025-04-29

How to Cite

Dr. Usman Hameed, Dr. Saira Bashir Dar, Ali Shahid, & Sadia Saeed. (2025). Case Note: Shahzad Ahmad v. The State and Another [Criminal Appeal No.294/2022 & Jail petition No. 302/2022 (IHC-Islamabad)]. Policy Journal of Social Science Review, 3(4), 356–359. Retrieved from https://journalofsocialsciencereview.com/index.php/PJSSR/article/view/223

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 4 (2025): Policy Journal of Social Science Review

Section

Articles