# In a rape case, is the woman's character on trial? > No. Since 2016 the law no longer allows the defence to show that a rape survivor was of "generally immoral character" to discredit her. In 2021 the Supreme Court said plainly: it is the accused who is on trial, not the victim. - Topic: Criminal law - Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan - Citation: PLD 2021 SC 550 - The myth: "In a rape case, her character is on trial." Verdict: Wrong. - Watch: https://failegal.site/media/kirdar (video https://failegal.site/media/kirdar/reel.mp4, 0:48) - Published by FAI Legal on 2026-10-10 Many women in Pakistan do not report rape because they believe the trial will be about them: their past, their reputation, their character. This matters to survivors and their families deciding whether to go to the police, and to everyone who works in or around criminal trials. ## Key points - Article 151(4) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat once allowed the defence in a rape case to show that the woman "was of generally immoral character". It was omitted by the Criminal Law Amendment (Offences Relating to Rape) Act 2016 (PLD 2021 SC 550, paragraph 13). - The Supreme Court in PLD 2021 SC 550: "it is the accused who is on trial and not the victim" (paragraph 12). - A survivor's testimony, if it inspires confidence, is enough to convict (paragraph 5). - The Court also said the "two-finger" or virginity test has no scientific basis and offends the survivor's dignity. ## The rule in one line In a rape trial the question is whether the accused committed the offence. The survivor's alleged character is not a ground to discredit her evidence, and her own testimony, if it inspires confidence, can be enough to convict. ## What happened in this case On 28 August 2012 a twenty year old woman, a B.Ed. student, was travelling from Kotli Sattian to Rawalpindi. She was intercepted, taken off the road and raped (paragraphs 1 and 4). She went straight to the police station (paragraph 1). The trial court sentenced the accused to death. The High Court reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life (paragraph 2). ## What the defence did In court the defence attacked her character (paragraphs 4 and 7). ## What the Supreme Court said The Supreme Court decided the appeal by a short order on 4 January 2021. It held that the survivor's testimony inspired confidence and was sufficient, and that DNA evidence matched two of the appellants. Their convictions and life sentences were upheld (paragraph 5). A third accused was acquitted, giving him the benefit of the doubt (paragraph 6). It said: "it is the accused who is on trial and not the victim" (paragraph 12). It noted that Article 151(4) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat had been omitted by the Criminal Law Amendment (Offences Relating to Rape) Act 2016 (paragraph 13), and that questions about a survivor's "general immoral character" should not be put to her (paragraph 14). The Court also said that the "two-finger" or virginity test has no scientific basis and offends the survivor's dignity. ## The case at a glance - **Facts:** On 28 August 2012 a twenty year old B.Ed. student travelling from Kotli Sattian to Rawalpindi was intercepted, taken off the road and raped. She went straight to the police station. The trial court passed death sentences; the High Court reduced them to life imprisonment. At trial the defence attacked her character. - **The question:** Whether the survivor's alleged character could be used to discredit her evidence, and whether the convictions should stand. - **What the Court held:** Her character was not on trial. Two appellants' convictions and life sentences were upheld; a third accused was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt. - **Why:** Article 151(4) was omitted in 2016, so the defence can no longer show that a survivor was of generally immoral character to impeach her credit. The trial is of the accused, not the victim. Her confidence-inspiring testimony, supported by DNA evidence against two appellants, was sufficient. - **Limits:** The defence can still test a survivor's account in cross-examination on the facts of the offence. The ruling removes her alleged character as a ground to discredit her; it does not remove the prosecution's burden to prove the case. ## The law it relies on - **Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 151(4) (omitted):** Clause (4) read: "when a man is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to ravish, it may be shown that the prosecutrix was of generally immoral character." It was omitted by the Criminal Law Amendment (Offences Relating to Rape) Act 2016, as the Supreme Court noted in PLD 2021 SC 550, paragraph 13. ## What this does not mean - It does not mean the accused cannot defend himself. The defence can still cross-examine on what happened; it cannot use her alleged character to discredit her. - It does not mean every complaint ends in conviction. The survivor's testimony must inspire confidence, and in this case one of three accused was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt. - It does not depend on her past. The Court said the trial is of the accused, not the victim. ## Questions people ask ### Can the defence ask about a rape survivor's character or past? Article 151(4) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, which allowed the defence to show the woman was of generally immoral character, was omitted in 2016. In PLD 2021 SC 550 the Supreme Court said questions about her general immoral character should not be put to her (paragraph 14). ### Is the survivor's own statement enough to convict? The Supreme Court said in PLD 2021 SC 550 that a survivor's testimony, if it inspires confidence, is sufficient (paragraph 5). In that case DNA evidence also matched the two men whose convictions were upheld. ### Is the two-finger test still allowed? The Supreme Court said in PLD 2021 SC 550 that the two-finger or virginity test has no scientific basis and offends the survivor's dignity. ## Sources - Atif Zareef v. The State, PLD 2021 SC 550, Supreme Court of Pakistan, 4 January 2021, paras 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14. It is the accused who is on trial and not the victim; Article 151(4) omitted in 2016; survivor's confidence-inspiring testimony sufficient; two life sentences upheld; two-finger test has no scientific basis. (verified against full text) (official text: https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/crl.a._251_2020.pdf) - Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 151(4) (omitted 2016) (former text checked in FAI Statute Search; omission as stated by the Supreme Court) (official text: https://pakistancode.gov.pk/english/UY2FqaJw1-apaUY2Fqa-apaUY2Npa5plaw%3D%3D-sg-jjjjjjjjjjjjj) ## What the reel says Heard this one? "In a rape case, it's the woman's character that's on trial." Wrong. In 2016, Article 151(4) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat was omitted. Her alleged character can no longer be used to discredit her evidence. 2012, Rawalpindi: a twenty-year-old student was taken off the road and assaulted. She went straight to the police. In court, the defence went after her character. The Supreme Court (January 2021): "it is the accused who is on trial and not the victim." A victim's testimony, if it inspires confidence, is enough to convict. Two life sentences upheld (PLD 2021 SC 550). The Court also said the "two-finger" or virginity test has no scientific basis and offends the survivor's dignity. --- Educational legal information, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. Speak to a qualified lawyer about your situation. Reading this page does not create a lawyer and client relationship. Review status: Pending advocate review. English: https://failegal.site/media/kirdar ยท Urdu: https://failegal.site/media/ur/kirdar FAI Media is part of FAI Legal (https://failegal.site), research on Pakistani statutes and judgments. Free to watch and read.