Manazir Ali Vs The State etc

Stereo. HCJDA-38

Judgment Sheet

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Appeal No.31263 of 2022

Manazir Ali Versus The State & another

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 08.07.2026.

Appellant by: Mr. Anwar-ul-Haq Khokhar, Advocate.

Ms. Rahila Shahid, Deputy Prosecutor State by General.

Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, J. Through this criminal appeal, appellant Manazir Ali assails the judgment dated 20.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kot Momin, District Sargodha, in connection with case FIR No.236 dated 02.07.2020 registered for offence under Section 376 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Midh Ranjha, District Sargodha, whereby he was convicted under Section 376 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for twenty-five years with direction to pay Rs.500,000/- to the victim as compensation provided under Section 544-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. It has been further directed that amount of compensation shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the convict, in default whereof the

convict will further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Benefit of Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, stands extended to the appellant/convict.

2.Allegation against the appellant as per complaint (Exh.PC) is that on 02.07.2020 at about 02:00 p.m. he committed rape with complainant’s daughter when she was alone in her house.

3.Learned trial court after completing codal formalities, framed charge against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to prove its case, produced nine witnesses. Dr. Qamar-uz-Zaman (PW.01) conducted medico legal examination of the appellant while Dr. Aylia Ameen (PW.7) conducted medico legal examination of victim and prepared medico legal examination report (Exh.PD). Azhar Iqbal, (PW.3) is complainant of the case while Muhammad Ameer (PW.6) is the witness who on hearing hue & cry of the victim reached the spot. Victim appeared as PW.5. Anam Sarfraz, T/LSI (PW.09) is Investigation Officer of the case. Rest of the witnesses are formal in nature. Prosecution gave up PW Muhammad Wazir being unnecessary and while tendering report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency regarding DNA test (Exh.PJ) closed the prosecution evidence. Appellant in his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, negated the allegation leveled against him and maintained that he has been falsely implicated in this case only to grab money and due to previous enmity of his father with a close relative of the complainant. Appellant despite opting to adduce evidence in

his defence did not produce the same. He, even did not prefer to render statement on oath as provided under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. After completion of trial, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above vide judgment dated 20.04.2022.

4.Arguments heard. Record perused.

5.Appellant is sole nominated accused of the FIR with a specific allegation of commission of rape with complainant’s daughter. FIR was got registered without any inordinate delay. Similarly victim approached the hospital on the same night and her medico legal examination was conducted within twelve hours of the occurrence. Victim as well as complainant consistently rendered statements without any material discrepancy or infirmity. No question of substitution of the appellant arises in the circumstances of this case. Perusal of medico legal examination certificate (Exh.PD) and the statement got recorded by the Women Medical Officer Dr. Aylia Ameen (PW.7) reveals that she observed tear, swelling as well as hyperemia on victim’s private parts and hymen was found freshly ruptured. As per forensic report (Exh.PJ) spermatozoa were identified on item No.1 & 2 i.e. internal and external vaginal swabs from the victim. The DNA profile obtained from sperm fraction of item No.2 as per report wedded with the DNA profile of Manazar Ali appellant. Report further reveals that DNA profile obtained from sperm fraction of item No.1 (internal vaginal swabs) is a mixture of at least three individuals and considering the victim as an

assumed contributor, Manazar Ali cannot be excluded as being contributor to this DNA mixture profile. So far as the fact argued to the effect that as per report DNA profile obtained from epithelial fraction of item No.2 (external vaginal swabs) was mixture of at least four individuals and no conclusion could be made about Manazar Ali as being contributor to this DNA mixture profile due to not fulfilling inclusion/exclusion criteria, is concerned, we have observed that when a biological sample is collected in a sexual assault investigation, it may contain a mixture of sperm cells (if present) and non-sperm cells. The sample undergoes differential extraction, a laboratory procedure that separates the sample into two fractions:

1)Sperm fraction

2)Epithelial (non-sperm) fraction

DNA is then extracted separately from each fraction for comparison with reference samples.

Epithelial fraction refers to the extraction of the non-sperm cells which can be:-

(I)The “victim” vaginal, cervical, oral mucosal epithelial cells along with some white blood cells.

(II)The “offenders” skin, buccal epithelial cells, white blood cells and immature sperm cells.

Because the non-sperm fraction in vaginal swabs is ordinarily dominated by the victim’s epithelial cells, John M. Butler notes that it is commonly referred to as the female fraction in sexual assault evidence.

The sperm fraction is the fraction enriched for sperm cells following differential extraction. DNA obtained from this fraction is analyzed to determine the source of the sperm cells recovered from the evidence.

Presence of an offender’s DNA in the epithelial fraction is supportive evidence indicating that the offender’s non-sperm cells were also present in the sample. However, by itself, DNA detected in the epithelial fraction cannot establish that sexual intercourse, ejaculation, or penetration occurred. Conversely, recovery of the offender’s DNA from the sperm fraction is consistent with the offender being the source of the sperm cells recovered from the sample. The objective of differential extraction is to separate sperm cells from non-sperm cells. Consequently, when the laboratory procedur is successful, the offender’s DNA may be recovered only from the sperm fraction, while the epithelial fraction may predominantly contain the victim’s DNA. According to the United States National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and John M. Butler’s Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing Methodology, there is no forensic principle requiring an offender’s DNA to be present in both, the sperm fraction and the epithelial (non-sperm) fraction. A DNA profile obtained from the sperm fraction alone may constitute strong forensic evidence, provided that validated laboratory methods were followed, quality assurance standards were met, and the results are interpreted in the context of the entire body of evidence. Hence, absence of the offender’s DNA from the

epithelial fraction does not, by itself, invalidate or diminish credibility and probative value of matching DNA profile obtained from the sperm fraction.

6.Perusal of medico legal examination certificate (Ex.PD) in the light of availability of tears, swelling, hyperemia on victim’s private parts, fresh ruptured hymen observed by the Medical Officer and availability of spermatozoa on her internal and external vaginal swabs makes it clear that offence of rape stands committed with the poor victim while matching of DNA profile obtained from sperm fraction of external and internal vaginal swabs of the victim with DNA profile of the appellant, certainly substantiates the charge against him. Evidence produced by the prosecution in this case in our considered opinion is confidence inspiring and trustworthy. Though learned counsel for the appellant has argued that one Muhammad Feroze, cousin of the complainant got registered FIR No.111/2014 during the year 2014 regarding a hurt occurrence against Fateh Muhammad, appellant’s father in which he was acquitted of the charge during the year 2021 vide judgment dated 01.03.2021 and because of that grudge the instant case was got registered against the appellant yet we have also noticed that judgment of acquittal in that case was passed during the year 2021 while instant FIR was got registered on 02.07.2020 and moreover, it is not expected from a father to stigmatize his young unmarried daughter only because of the fact that a hurt case got registered by one of his

cousins remained unsuccessful against father of the appellant. Hence, defence taken by the appellant is brushed aside.

7.For all mentioned supra, we hold that prosecution remained successful to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of a reasonable doubt, being so, reasoned judgment of conviction impugned does not require any interference. Criminal Appeal No.31263 of 2022 is dismissed. Case property be dealt with in accordance with law.

Signed on 23.07.2026.

(Muhammad Amjad Rafiq) (Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi) Judge Judge

Approved for reporting.

Judge Judge *Nazir*