Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4807
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Parties: Manazir Ali vs The State etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court, officially reported as 2026 LHC 4807. In this matter between Manazir Ali and The State etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi) DECISION DATE: 08-07-2026 CASE DETAILS: Crl. Appeal 31263/22 ============================================================ 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. State by Ms. Rahila Shahid , Deputy Prosecutor General.
Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi , J . Through t his criminal appeal , appellant Manazir Ali assails the judgment dated 20.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Kot Momin, District Sarg odha, 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 r ecovered as arrears of land revenue from the convict, in default whereof the Criminal Appeal No.31263 of 2022
2 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) conduc ted 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 Criminal Appeal No.31263 of 2022
3 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 twel ve 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 repor t (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 r eveals that DNA profile obtained from sperm fraction of item No.1 (internal vaginal swabs) is a mixture of at least three individuals and c onsidering the victim as an Criminal Appeal No.31263 of 2022
4 assumed contributor , Manazar Ali cannot be excluded as being contributor to this DNA mixt ure profile. So far as the fact argued to the effect that as per r eport DNA profile obtained from epithelial fraction of item No.2 (external vaginal swabs) was mixture of at le ast 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) an d 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 cell s, 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 refer red to as the female fraction in sexual assault evidence. Criminal Appeal No.31263 of 2022
5 The sperm fraction is the fraction enriched for sperm cells following differential extraction. DNA obtained from this fraction is analy zed to determine the source of the sperm cells recovered from the evidence. Presence of an offender’s DNA in the epit helial 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 occurre d. 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 Justic e (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 s perm 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 conte xt of the entire body of evidence. Hence, absence of th e offender’s DNA from the Criminal Appeal No.31263 of 2022
6 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 a vailability 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 c ase 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 a gainst 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 judgmen t 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 registere d by one of his Criminal Appeal No.31263 of 2022
7 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 20 22 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*