Supreme Court seeks clarity on DNA evidence in conviction case

The Supreme Court has sought further assistance from lawyers on three key legal questions in a conviction appeal, including whether an accused person can be convicted solely on the basis of DNA evidence.

A division bench comprising Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad took up the appeal on Tuesday. The appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of a man in a case involving a 25-year-old woman with hearing and speech impairments.

The court adjourned after seeking assistance. No decision was reached, and the appeal remains pending.

What the bench asked

During the hearing, Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan observed that the high court had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment relying on the DNA report, while also describing the woman as mentally disabled in its judgment.

The accused’s counsel argued that the woman had not personally recorded a statement before the trial court. The trial court had instead relied on the testimony of her mother, the counsel said. He also cited a previous Supreme Court judgment holding that a conviction could not be based solely on a DNA match.

Justice Shakeel Ahmad observed that the facts of the cited judgment differed from those of the present case. That distinction matters, because courts apply earlier rulings to new cases only where the facts are comparable.

According to the accused’s counsel, the woman complained of abdominal pain to her mother during the fifth month of pregnancy. A later medical examination confirmed that she was pregnant.

The woman’s counsel said the child’s DNA test had matched the accused, who was both her neighbour and her maternal uncle.

The three questions before the court

The bench later set out three questions for lawyers to address. First, whether a conviction could be based solely on DNA evidence. Second, whether the woman had only hearing and speech impairments or also a mental disability. Third, why no expert had been summoned to interpret her communication during the trial.

Justice Shakeel Ahmad observed that experts were summoned under Supreme Court precedents to interpret the statements of persons with hearing and speech impairments. The practice exists so that a witness who cannot speak or hear in the usual way can still be heard accurately by the court.

Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan noted that the woman’s mother had said her daughter identified the accused before two witnesses. He observed that her ability to identify the accused raised a question about the assertion of mental disability.

Justice Shakeel Ahmad, however, stressed examining the woman’s capacity to understand and communicate what had happened. Identification and full understanding are not the same thing.

Why the DNA question matters

DNA evidence can identify a person with great precision, but courts still ask what that identification proves on its own. A DNA match may show a biological link, yet a conviction usually rests on a fuller picture: testimony, medical evidence and surrounding circumstances.

That is why the defence argument draws on an earlier Supreme Court judgment. If a conviction cannot rest on a DNA match alone, trial courts must build the rest of the case to the same standard.

The counterpoint, raised by Justice Shakeel Ahmad, is that every case turns on its own facts. Where a DNA result sits alongside other evidence, such as identification before witnesses, the court may view it differently from a case where DNA stands alone.

The bench has not answered these questions yet. By framing them clearly and seeking further assistance, it has signalled that the answers could guide trial courts in similar cases.

Why expert help matters for witnesses

Witnesses with hearing and speech impairments face a practical barrier in court. Their statements must be interpreted accurately, and the interpreter’s role must be recorded so higher courts can test it later.

Supreme Court precedents require experts to be summoned for this task. The bench’s third question asks why that step was not taken during this trial. The answer could affect how the appeal is decided and how future trials are conducted.

What did the Supreme Court ask about DNA evidence?

What are the other two questions?

Has the court decided the appeal?

• The Express Tribune, “SC seeks clarity on DNA evidence in rape conviction” (28 October 2026): https://tribune.com.pk/story/2637299/sc-seeks-clarity-on-dna-evidence-in-rape-conviction
• The Nation, “SC seeks clarification on evidentiary value of DNA reports in disabled woman rape case” (28 October 2026): https://www.nation.com.pk/newspaper/28-Oct-2026/sc-seeks-clarification-evidentiary-value-dna-reports-disabled-woman-rape-case
• Feature Pakistan, “Lahore judge recuses from Azeri woman case bail plea” (published 28 October 2026): https://featurepakistan.com/lahore-judge-azeri-woman-case-bail-october-2026/