MUHAMMAD IMRAN vs State Ss — 2025 PLD 662 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS State Ss. 376, 449 & 496-B---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9 & 14---Rape, trespassing and fornication---Re-appraisal of evidence---Right to life, dignity and privacy---Converting of offence---Absence of resistance marks---Accused was convicted by Trial Court for commission of rape with complainant and was sentenced to imprisonment of ten years---High Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court---Validity---Constitution specifically deals with preserving, protecting and promoting rights of women, which are clearly violated in gender-based violence cases---Provision of Article 9 of the Constitution protects right to life and Article 14 of the Constitution grants inviolable right to dignity as well as the right to privacy---In cases of rape, there is a gross violation of right to life, dignity and privacy---State is responsible for ensuring that essential and required steps are taken to protect women from such crimes and also to protect them from gender stereotyping which undermines a woman's ability to enjoy her basic fundamental rights---Gender stereotyping should not undermine rule of law---Act of rape has serious consequences as it deprives a woman of her right to life and her right to dignity and privacy which includes the right to mental and physical integrity---Every woman is entitled to respect for her life, her integrity and security of her person---No woman should be stigmatized simply because she has availed her right to access to justice and reported a heinous crime against her person and body---Accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied prosecution's case and had specifically taken the plea that complainant wanted to marry him and on his refusal, she managed to register a fake case against him---Accused neither appeared as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in his defense---There was no consensual intercourse between accused and complainant---Accused did not specifically raise the defense that he was involved with her and had consensual intercourse---Offense under section 496-B, P.P.C. was not made out---Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused by two Court below---Appeal was dismissed.

MUHAMMAD IMRAN vs State Ss — 2025 PLD 662 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD