May 07, 2025
By Iqra Manzoor
LAHORE
In a troubling incident that took place on April 28, Sahiwal police booked a 16-year-old deaf-mute girl along with her mother under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, for ‘misleading the investigation of a rape case’ and for accepting money to retract their statement during court proceedings. The original case, FIR No. 627/24, was registered at the Shahkot Police Station on September 26, 2024, in which the girl’s mother had accused a man of raping her daughter.
According to police documents, the case had been proceeding in court, when the mother, who is the complainant in the case, and the 16 year old rape-survivor informed the court that the accusation had been a “misunderstanding.” Their statements effectively reversed their earlier claims, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Second FIR
Following this retraction, the police lodged a second FIR, No. 230/25, under Section 2 of the Anti-Rape Act, on April 28, 2025. The FIR accused the mother and daughter of misleading the investigation and states that the mother allegedly accepted a substantial amount of money from the accused party in an informal settlement outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Sub-Inspector Muhammad Mansha, who is investigating the case, told Voicepk that the women will soon be arrested.
“The police have been directed to arrest the girl and her mother under the Anti-Rape Act,” he said. “Although they have not yet been apprehended, efforts are underway to locate them.”
The case details show that the man who was accused of rape in the original FIR, was initially arrested by police on October 5, 2024. A local court granted a 14-day physical remand, and the survivor’s DNA evidence was sent to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) on October 8, 2024. To facilitate accurate communication during the investigation, a special education teacher was also appointed to interpret the deaf-mute survivor’s testimony under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
While there were reports of the DNA test confirming a positive match with the suspect, while talking to Voicepk the police did not say anything about a DNA report and claimed that the it had not yet been submitted.
A serious concern for survivors
Legal experts warn that such retractions raise serious concerns about pressure on victims, misuse of the legal system, and challenges in pursuing justice under the Anti-Rape Act.
“In most rape cases, the primary evidence is the victim’s statement. If that is withdrawn or retracted, the courts often acquit the accused — even if corroboratory evidence, such as DNA, supports the claim,” says Advocate Lahore High Court Shabbir Hussain.
The burden on the courts intensifies when complainants retract their statements, particularly in cases where DNA or other forensic evidence is the only corroborative proof available.
“In such cases, the DNA report serves as vital corroboratory evidence,” says Hussain. “However, when the complainants withdraw their statements and claim the allegations were a ‘misunderstanding’ or that the offence never occurred, it becomes extremely difficult for courts to determine whether the crime actually took place.”
According to legal provisions, Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) allows for the acquittal of the accused if there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the trial. This provision often takes precedence in practice when the prosecution fails to challenge the retraction of the initial complaint.
Under Section 13 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Rules, however, the law explicitly states that in cases of non-compoundable offences like rape, “the trial must continue regardless of whether the victim withdraws, fails to appear in court, or reaches a compromise outside the court.”
The onus is on the prosecution to cross-examine its own witnesses, challenge the withdrawal, and present corroborative evidence to prevent the premature dismissal of the case.
“If the prosecution fails to press the matter or properly cross-examine the complainant after the retraction, the courts may prioritize Section 265-K of the CrPC over the Anti-Rape Act’s procedural rules,” Hussain said. “This undermines the very intent of the law — which is to treat rape as a crime against the state and ensure that trials are not derailed by external pressure or informal settlements.”
Section 265-K of the CRPC and the Anti-Rape Trial Rules, both are important and create a conflict when it comes to the procedure of these cases.
Hussain notes a systemic issue. “Unfortunately, many courts still acquit accused persons based on resiled statements because judges are under pressure to quickly dispose of cases and meet monthly trial quotas.”
“In such cases, the DNA report serves as vital corroboratory evidence,” Advocate Shabbir Hussain explained. “However, when the complainants withdraw their statements and claim the allegations were a ‘misunderstanding’ or that the offence never occurred, it becomes extremely difficult for courts to determine whether the crime actually took place.”
According to legal provisions, Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) allows for the acquittal of the accused if there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the trial. This provision often takes precedence in practice when the prosecution fails to challenge the retraction of the initial complaint.
Under Section 13 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Rules, however, the law explicitly states that in cases of non-compoundable offences like rape, “the trial must continue regardless of whether the victim withdraws, fails to appear in court, or reaches a compromise outside the court.” The onus is on the prosecution to cross-examine its own witnesses, challenge the withdrawal, and present corroborative evidence to prevent the premature dismissal of the case.
“If the prosecution fails to press the matter or properly cross-examine the complainant after the retraction, the courts may prioritize Section 265-K of the CrPC over the Anti-Rape Act’s procedural rules,” Hussain said. “This undermines the very intent of the law — which is to treat rape as a crime against the state and ensure that trials are not derailed by external pressure or informal settlements.”
To curb the possibility of out-of-court settlements in rape and other heinous crimes, Section 22(2)(a) of the Anti-Rape Act, 2021 empowers the state to intervene in cases where the complainant withdraws or resiles from their initial statement. The law treats rape as a non-compoundable offense — a crime against the state — and mandates that trials continue irrespective of retractions.
However, this case raises a critical question: is the current legal framework enough to prevent coerced settlements or retractions?
Despite the gravity of the allegations — the rape of a minor, deaf-mute girl — the accused has been acquitted, while the victim and her mother now face arrest under allegations of filing a false case and reaching an out-of-court settlement. The victim, already marginalized due to her disability and age, now stands to be criminalized by the very system meant to protect her.
Crucially, in this case, the trial did not continue, even though Rule 13 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Rules explicitly directs that proceedings must not be halted due to retractions or settlements in rape cases. Instead, the court exercised its authority under Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for acquittal in the absence of sufficient evidence, thereby overriding the intent of the Anti-Rape Act to treat such crimes as state offenses.
What will be achieved by arresting a rape victim and her mother in such circumstances? If the state’s approach to preventing retractions leads to punishing victims instead of protecting them, it risks re-traumatizing survivors and discouraging others from coming forward.
Nida Aly, Executive Director of AGHS Legal Aid Cell and a prominent women’s rights activist, spoke to Voicepk regarding cases in which victims withdraw their statements, often resulting in out-of-court settlements. Aly expressed deep concern and outrage over the police registering an FIR against the 16-year-old deaf-mute girl — allegedly a victim of rape — and her mother, the complainant in the case.
Aly stated, “AGHS has been training police officials, prosecutors and judges, but when it comes to such cases where victims resile their statements, unanimously, they have always said that the cases were false — and the officials never go beyond the reasons.”
“The judicial mindset is flawed,” she added.
She further elaborated on the alarming frequency of such retractions: “In 60 to 70% of assault cases, the victims resile their statements. Although the law states that the case must continue. In AGHS, 15 assault cases were reported, and 6 victims in these cases did not want to pursue the case.”
Aly emphasized the need to examine the context and pressures behind such withdrawals. “We need to observe the power dynamic in assault cases. We do not know the influence behind the resiling of statements by the victims — we do not understand the motivation. Women are trust-deficit; they do not want to pursue the cases because the conviction rate in such cases is already low. It was 3%, and now it is around 5%.”
She cautioned against blanket assumptions about bad faith: “Resiling statements by the victims is not always out of bad intention — we need to understand that. The officials, lawyers, and the judiciary must look into the reasons why such serious cases are being resiled after being formally registered.”
Regarding the legal remedy often invoked, Aly noted: “The law suggests one way in such cases, which is declaring the victims as hostile by the prosecutor if they are resiling their statements, but this is, again, I think, a male-centric approach.”
“As a women’s rights activist, I believe that hostile declaration is victimizing the victim who has already gone through so much. We do not know the reason why they are resiling their statements — is it fear or any other influence? But one thing is for sure: the case must continue. In this way, even if the victim resiles their statement, the accused must still be punished if proved guilty.”
She concluded with grave concern about the outcome of the present case: “There are no such alternatives in my knowledge except hostile declaration — but in this particular case, the trial has been completed, and the accused is free now. The victim, a 16-year-old deaf-mute girl, has been ordered to be arrested. This is so unfair to the minor.”
This paradox lies at the heart of the Anti-Rape Act’s implementation: while the law provides for state intervention and the continuation of trials, it fails to fully account for the power dynamics, vulnerabilities, and systemic failures that compel such retractions in the first place.
The case brings into sharp focus the implementation challenges of the Anti-Rape Act, 2021, especially in situations involving vulnerable victims, such as minors and persons with disabilities. It also raises critical questions about victim protection, witness intimidation, and the responsibility of law enforcement and prosecutors to ensure that justice is neither derailed by retracted statements nor by informal settlements.