Usman Ibrar vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 50 ISLAMABAD

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

Usman Ibrar VS State Ss. 354-a, 342, 395, 375-a, 114, 506(ii), 509, 384, 377-B, 412 & 34---Outraging the modesty of a woman, wrongful confinement, dacoity or robbery committed by five or more persons, gang rape, abettor present when the offense was committed, criminal intimidation, insulting the modesty of a woman or causing sexual harassment, extortion, sexual abuse and trafficking of children, dishonest receipt or retention of property stolen during a dacoity, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Digital evidence confirming the occurrence---accused were charged for detaining a girl and a boy in an apartment while forcibly stripping the off their clothes, extending life threats and committing obscene acts with the two victims---Record showed that the entire case rested upon the video evidence stored in two USBs---Forensic analysis through the use of metadata showed that no software or tool was used or identified in the submitted four video files to perform video editing or tampering---Moreover, it was also identified during frame analysis of the video clips that there was no edition or deletion in the videos---Said witness also conducted spectrogram analysis of audio and video clips and he could not identify any abrupt changes in the pitch which proved the genuineness of audios of those video files---Said witness also conducted voice authentication analysis of audios received in USB with the audios of the video files and found the audio file of accused/appellant matched with the audios in the video files which depicted strong evidence and gave the verbal scale of 3.22---audios of other accused persons in the video files were of short length and analysis could not be done because of short length of audios---Said witness also received letter for forensic analysis and retrieval of data stored in three mobiles, however, during analysis it was found that a phone was reset, further it was identified to be at configuration stage which depicted that phone was not used after it was reset last time---Whereas, other mobile phone was found password protected and the protection could not be exploited without risk of loss of data---Said witness also conducted the forensic analysis of mobile, but the said video was not found, whereas, the another mobile phone showed error in booting process and a phone could not be processed due to battery and display issues---While considering the cross-examination of the technical expert of prosecution witness, the defence was unable to recover any aspect of technical failure or objection in the forensic analysis report prepared by said witness of the audio and video forensic in the case---Court was of the view that the prosecution in order to discharge the burden of digital electronic evidence produced the expert, whose expertises were acknowledged during the course of cross-examination as well as his status being an expert was not denied---Transcript of videos containing videos of 53 seconds, 28 seconds, 45 seconds and 533 seconds, confirmed the ordeal by two victims at the hands of five accused persons, confirming the conduct of all the appellants in unequivocal terms---In the present case, the technical analysis report conducted to determine how many people had seen and shared the video attached with the trend of accused confirmed that the said trend was shared by 558 accounts with 533 original tweets, whereas the hashtag of accused was shared by 3487 accounts with 721 original tweets---Hence, it showedthat approximately the trend had been watched and shared more than 100k (100,000) times---In the present case, the appellants had raised the argument that since the alleged offence was committed in a private place, resultantly it could not be said to be viewed by the public and therefore did not meet the essential elements of S.354-a, P.P.C---However, that argument was not well-founded, as the said element required only the commission of offence to be viewed by the public, regardless of wherever it was committed---Such facts confirmed that both the victims were harassed, humiliated and stripped off, which was seen by more than a hundred thousand people, and in this modern era any viral video content was to be considered within the meaning of public view owing to the changing digital times of modern age---appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Usman Ibrar vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 50 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR