2026 PLP 50 (YLR)

MOhsin Akhtar Kayani, J.

By way of this common judgment, we intend to decide the captioned appeals having common questions of law and facts arising out of same judgment dated 25.03.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Gender Based Violence (GBV) Courts East/West, Islamabad, in case FIR No 442 dated 06.07.2021 under sections 354-A/342/395/375-A/114/34/ 506(ii)/ 509/ 384 /377-B/412 P.P.C registered at Police Station Golra Sharif, Islamabad, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: i. Under section 354-A P.P.C sentenced to imprisonment for life each with fine of Rs.200,000/-each in default of the payment of fine they shall undergo One Month (01) S.I. each. ii. Under section 342 P.P.C sentenced to One Year (01) R.I. each. iii. Under section 506(ii) sentenced to Seven Years (07) R.I each. iv. Under section 509(i) sentenced to Three Years (03) R.I each. The sentence of imprisonment run concurrently and the accused are granted benefit of section 382(B) Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts referred in the instant FIR are that Syed Asim Ghaffar SI/PW-5, filed a criminal complaint (Exh. PL), with the allegations that on 06.07 2021 he was posted as SHO in Police Station Golra Sharif, Islamabad. On the same day at about 09:50 pm. he along with Noor Illahi ASI, Hassan Mujtaba, and Inayat Khan Constables, were present at Golra Darbar Chowk, where he along with the other accompanying police officials came across a viral video. He saw in the video that 5/6 persons have detained an unknown girl and a boy in an apartment while forcibly stripping off their clothes, extending life threats and committing obscene acts with the two victims. On receiving spy information qua the place of occurrence, the same was identified as Apartment No 417, 4th flour Magnum Heights E-11/2, Islamabad, and the four persons seen in the video were identified as Usman Ibrar, Hafiz Atta-ur-Rehman, Adaris Butt and Farhan Shaheen. PW-5 went to a nearby internet shop and got the video downloaded from the internet by a person namely Usman Shah (PW.8), who saved the video in a USB Exh.P.11/(1 to 3) and handed over the same to PW-5. The complainant drafted his complaint (Exh.P.11) and got registered the FIR. The Investigation Officer (I.O.) Tariq Zaman SI (PW-15), investigated the matter after registration of FIR. He proceeded to Magnum Heights E-11/2, Islamabad, where Syed Asim Ghaffar S.I handed over to him USB (Exh.P.35) containing the obscene video which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. (Exh.PM). He prepared un-scaled site plan (Exh.PAH) of the place of occurrence i.e. Apartment No.417, 4th Floor, Magnum Heights, E-11/2, Islamabad, from outside of the apartment as the same was locked from inside. He arrested accused Usman Abrar from nearby Mahnoor Arcade E-11/2, Islamabad. On 07.07.2021, he arrested Farhan Shaheen and Hafiz Atta-ur-Rehman on spy information and prepared a recovery memo. of all three accused persons' belongings, including their mobile phones and deposited the same with the Moharrar Maal Khana. Subsequently, the investigation was changed to Shafqat Mahmood Inspector (PW-18), who recorded statement of the first I.O, transmitted the USB (Exh.P35) to PFSA Lahore through the first I.O, and conducted photogrammetry test of all accused persons at PFSA Lahore. During the course of investigation on 25.07.2021, accused Omer Bilal, Rehan Hussain and Mohib Khan got recovered the amount extorted from the victim Asad Raza and later on distributed between accused persons. On 30.07.2021, the clothes worn by the victims at the time of occurrence were handed over by the victim Asad Raza to the I.O. The I.O sent the accused persons on judicial remand for identification parade on 10.07.2021. The statement of victims Asad Raza and Sundas Tahir under section 164 Cr.P.C were recorded by Dr. Sania Hameed Assistant Commissioner (PW-11) and Aneel Saeed Sub-Divisional Magistrate (PW.9). Copies of the statements have been produced as Exh.P4 and Exh.P5, and taken into possession through recovery memo. (Exh.PD). After recording of their statements, sections 384/114/395 P.P.C were added. On 11.07.2021, the I.O conducted spot inspection on pointation of the victims and prepared un-scaled site plan (Exh.PAL), while taking into possession paintings / decoration pieces Exh.P.6/(1-7) and a piece of carpet which was seen in the video from the said apartment vide recovery memo. Exh.PE. The Investigation Officer also arrested Mohib Khan in E-11 Markaz on 11.07.2021. On 12.07.2021 the pistol used in the occurrence was recovered on pointation and disclosure of accused Usman Ibrar from his house along with mobile phones through which the said videos were recorded. The accused Usman Ibrar was unable to produce license of the pistol, and therefore, separate FIR under sections 13/20/65 A.O, was registered. Two mobile phones i.e. IPhone 12 Pro Max (Exh.P-9) and IPhone 11 Pro Max (Exh.P.10) were also recovered on his pointation and the I.O incorporated the offences under sections 375-A and 377-B P.P.C. On 13.07.2021, he produced all the accused persons before the Area Magistrate and obtained physical remand along with a permission to collect the audio samples of the accused persons. He also joined accused Rehan Hussain for investigation, who was arrested by Tarnol Police Station and remanded to judicial custody for identification parade to Adyala Jail. On 15.07.2021, the Investigation Officer recorded audio samples of the accused Usman Ibrar, Farhan Shaheen, Hafiz Atta-ur-Rehman and Adaris Butt which were converted into USB and also got other obscene videos stored in another USB, while making a backup in a third USB Exh.P.11 (1 to 3). He also got prepared the transcript Exh.P.29/(1 to 6) of the words spoken in obscene videos and took the same into possession through recovery memo. Exh.PH. On 16.07.2021, during identification parade, the victims Asad Raza and Sundas Tahir identified accused Omer Bilal, Mohib Khan and Rehan Hussain Mughal and assigned specific role to each accused before Magistrate Aneel Saeed. On the same day USBs parcel Exh.P-11/ (1 to 3) along with transcript Exh.P-20/ (1 to 6) were submitted to Cyber Crime Wing FIA, after receiving the parcel from Moharrar Malkhana, through Said Wali ASI /PW-1.

3. The Investigation Officer also filed an application to FIA for a trend analysis report in order to determine how many people had watched the obscene videos. The four accused namely Muhammad Usman Ibrar, Hafiz Atta-ur-Rehman, Farhan Shaheen Awan and Muhammad Adaris Qayyum Butt were taken on official prison van to PFSA Lahore for photogrammetry test. The recovered mobile phones Exh.P.9, Exh.P.10 and Exh.P.36 were received from Moharrar Maal Khana by Said Wali ASI who deposited the same in Cyber Crime Wing FIA for forensic analysis. On 23.07.2021, the I.O received copies of identification parade reports Exh.P.39/(1-13) comprising of thirteen pages. The other mobile phones Samsung Galaxy (Exh.P.15) of Rehan Hussain and two mobile phones of Mohib Khan IPhone 7 (Exh.P.13) and Techno (Exh.P.14) were also received during the investigation. The accused persons also got recovered extorted amount from their house which was taken into possession separately i.e Rs.10,000/- from Omer Bilal, Exh.P.30 (1-20), Rs.70,000/- from Rehan Hussain Exh.P.31 (1-14), Rs.70,000/- from Mohib Khan Exh.P31 (1-14), and Rs.6,000/- from Adaris Qayyum Butt Exh.P.12(1-2). On 30.07.2021, victim Asad Raza handed over his dark gray colored sweater (Exh.P.16) and multi-colored shirt of Sundas Tahir (Exh.P.17) which they had worn at the time of occurrence, same were taken into possession through recovery memo. (Esh.PK) and their statements were recorded. On 04.08.2021, Said Wali ASI collected trend analysis report Exh.P.AE/(1-325) from Cyber Crime Wing FIA which demonstrated that the trend was seen by more than one hundred thousand people. On 25.10.2021, Muhammad Khan SI collected USB Exh.P35 from PFSA Lahore and handed over to the I.O. On 19.01.2022, Investigation Officer received permission from Area Magistrate for recording audio sample of accused Mohib Khan, which was recorded and converted into USB Exh.P.11/1-3) and same was submitted to Cyber Crime Wing FIA with request to conduct forensic analysis / audio matching consequently, the I.O. has submitted final report under section 173 Cr.P.C.

4. On 28.09 2021, all the seven accused persons namely Muhammad Usmar Abrar, Farhan Shaheen Awan, Hafiz Atte-ur-Rehman, Muhammad Adaris Qayoum Butt, Mohib Khan, Rehan Hussain Mughal and Omer Bilal Khan were charged for the offences under sections 354-A/342/395/ 506(ii)/ 375-A/509/384/411/149 P.P.C, for harassing and using criminal force against victim Sundas Tahir and outraging her modesty, stripping off her clothes, exposing her to public view, and wrongfully confined Sundas Tahir and Asad Raza in the flat and extorted amount on gun point, extended life threats and forced Asad Raza to commit rape of Sundas Tahir. The appellant and the acquitted accused pleaded not guilty, whereafter, prosecution got recorded statement of 22 prosecution witnesses. The appellants' statements under section 342 Cr.P.C. were recorded, whereafter the trial Court convicted five appellants and acquitted two accused from the charges.

5. Arguments heard, record perused.

6. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is necessary to address the preliminary issue raised by the appellants regarding the jurisdiction of the special court where the trial took place. JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL COURT

7. According to section 3 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021 (hereinafter referred as ARA 2021), the special courts established under the Act possess jurisdiction over cases specified in the Schedule of the Act. Proviso to section 3(3) of the ARA 2021 provides that where GBV courts, juvenile courts, or child protection courts have already been assigned, they shall be deemed as the distinguished Courts of Special Jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Presently, the GBV courts in Islamabad are functioning as special courts under the ARA 2021, as indicated by the proviso to section 3(3) of the Act. Consequently, the judgment rendered in the current case is also considered a judgment of the special court under the ARA 2021.

8. The appellants have also raised the argument that they should have been tried under section 21 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016 (hereinafter called as PECA 2016) Notably, section 21 of PECA 2016 is included in Schedule-I of the ARA 2021, while section 354-A of the P.P.C is mentioned in the Second Schedule of the ARA-2021. Therefore, the trial was conducted in the appropriate jurisdiction, and the prosecution sought charges and conviction under section 354-A, relying on video evidence and the sexual assault inflicted upon the victim. Section 21 of PECA addresses the offense of cyber stalking, encompassing acts such as taking unauthorized photographs or videos and subsequently displaying or distributing them to intimidate or harass the individuals involved. While it could be argued that charges under section 21 of PECA could have been framed as well, but the prosecution's case has primarily relied on section 354-A of the P.P.C. In this context, the offense pertains to the sexual assault of the female victim, with the video footage serving as crucial evidence. Consequently, the appellants' argument that the trial was conducted in an incorrect jurisdiction holds no merit.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants have taken specific pleas challenging their conviction. Firstly, that the video evidence upon which the conviction is based was not proved in accordance with the guidelines laid down in PLD 2019 [SC] 675 (Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza and 2 others v. Federation of Pakistan and others), rendering it as a non-admissible piece of evidence. A comprehensive set of criteria is laid down to assess the admissibility of audio or video evidence, and if these 21 requirements, as delineated in the judgment, are not satisfactorily demonstrated, such evidence cannot serve as a basis for any conviction. Secondly, it is argued that the offence under section 354-A P.P.C. was not made out as the essential element of 'public view' is not satisfied in the present case. Lastly, the victims resiled from their original stance and were declared hostile thereafter, refusing their allegations and the entire incident. In light of these contentions, the appellants have prayed that their conviction be set-aside.

10. While considering the abovementioned contentions raised by the appellants, it is necessary to take each and every portion of this case separately for final conclusion. The entire case rests upon the video evidence Exh.P11/(1 to 3) stored in two USBs Exh.PH as well as USB Exh.P.35. The Investigation Officer Shafqat Mahmood Inspector PW-18, and Tariq Zaman PW-15 proceeded with the investigation after the statement of Syed Asim Ghaffar S.I (PW.5). He along with other police officials saw the video that went viral through social media twitter account where 5/6 persons have detained the two victims in an apartment and they were forcibly stripping of their clothes, giving life threats and were committing obscene acts. The said video was saved by PW.5 in the USB with the help of Usman Shah (PW8) and taken into possession through recovery memo. Exh.P.M. This piece of evidence is a basic document on which entire prosecution case was established. In order to settle the question of admissibility of this video evidence, it must be ascertained whether such video evidence can be used as an admissible piece of evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. ADMISSIBILITY OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE

11. In order to prove this aspect, we have gone through the status of digital evidence which can be termed as evidence created, stored or shared in an electronic format. In the present times, when the use of technology for multiple purposes is so common, digital evidence plays a crucial role in the criminal justice system all around the world. Prior to 2002, Pakistan had no laws that addressed the use of digital evidence. However, recognizing the rapid pace of digitalization in all areas of life, the Electronic Transaction Ordinance (ETO) was enacted in the year 2002. This Ordinance brought about changes to other laws, including the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. It relates to the admissibility of digital evidence and has declared such evidence to also be best evidence in legal proceedings if the criteria set by the Supreme Court is fulfilled. The term "digital evidence" has not been defined in any statute. Reference can be made to its dictionary meaning and the definitions provided by different organizations depending upon its relevance and applicability. Black's Law Dictionary defines electronic evidence as "Any computer-generated data that is relevant to a case. Included are email, text documents, spreadsheets, images, database files, deleted email and files and back-ups. The data may be on floppy disk, zip disk, hard drive, tape, CD or DVD." The definition proposed by International Organization of Computer Evidence (IOCE) defining it as: "Information stored or transmitted in binary form that may be relied upon in court."

12. Before going further, the relevant portion of Article-164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, in relation to digital evidence is reproduced hereunder: "

164. Production of evidence that has become available because of modern devices, etc. in such cases as the Court may consider appropriate, the Court may allow to be produced any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques. Provided that conviction on the basis of modern devices or techniques may be lawful." The proviso to Article-164 was added through an amendment made by Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 Similarly, the Electronic Transaction Ordinance, 2002 (ETO) introduced amendments in the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 to the following effect: 2(e): The expression automated, electronic, information, information system, electronic documents and electronic signatures, advanced electronic signatures and security procedure shall bear the meaning given in ETO 2002. Art. 73 (Explanation 3); A print out or other form of output of an automated information system shall not be denied the status of primary evidence solely for the reason that it was generated, received or stored in electronic form if the automated information system was in working order at all material times and for the purposes hereof in the absence of evidence to the contrary it shall be presumed that the automated information system was in working order at all material times. Art. 73 (Explanation 4): A print out or other form of reproduction of an electronic document other than document mentioned in explanation 3 above, first generated, sent, received or stored in electric form, shall be treated as primary evidence, where a security procedure was applied thereto at the time it was generated, sent recovered or stored. Art. 46-A:Relevance of information generated, received or recorded by automated information system while it is in the working order, are relevant facts."

13. While considering these amendments, the admissibility of digitally created documents as primary evidence has been introduced in courts. The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, has adopted a broad view of "evidence of the document , which includes various forms of media such as handwritten notes, digital data on a hard drive or USB flash drive, and emails. Previously, digital evidence was considered secondary evidence since it required additional resources, such as a printer, to produce a form that could be viewed by people However, with the recent revisions in the laws digital evidence no longer remains hearsay. The Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002 (ETC) 2002) has made the acceptance of such evidence uncontested and it has an overriding effect as per section 33 of ETO-2002. Under Article 46-A of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, digital evidence, as well as evidence manufactured or kept mechanically, are considered relevant facts. The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 also includes Article 78-A, which accepts electronic papers as acceptable digital evidence under Article

73. This is because it can produce copies of previously saved data. For digital evidence to be recognized globally, it must meet the characteristics of authenticity, dependability, and admissibility. The ETO 2012 was enacted to arrest the growth of rising digital criminality and address concerns about the admissibility of digital evidence to prove such crimes. The Ordinance brought some fundamental changes to the traditional law of evidence applicable to civil and criminal trials. It declared electronic or digital evidence as primary evidence and affirmed the originality of electronic documents, information, record, and transaction, thereby dispelling the perception that information stored or exchanged digitally is hearsay evidence. The ETO 2002 also reaffirmed the relevance of digital evidence, keeping in view the dictates of Article 18 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, according to which evidence may only be led as to any matter in issue or relevant facts. The legislative branch of Pakistan has made significant strides in recognizing the admissibility of digital evidence in court. The acceptance of digital evidence has been made recognized by the ETO, and its relevance has been reaffirmed by judicial decisions. While authenticity, dependability, and admissibility are characteristics that must be met for electronic evidence to be recognized, the ETO 2002 has addressed these concerns and has made digital evidence a primary form of evidence in Pakistan. In order to establish the clear view, sections 3 and 5 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002 are reproduced as under: "Section 3 Legal recognition to electronic forms: "No document, record, information, communication or transaction shall be denied legal recognition, admissibility, validity or enforceability on the ground that it is in the electronic form and has not been attested by any witness." Section 5 Requirement for original form (1) The requirement under any law for any document, record, information, communication or transaction to be presented or retained in its original form shall be deemed satisfied by presenting or retaining the same if:- (a) There exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity thereof from the time when it was first generated in its final form; and (b) It is required that the presentation, thereof is capable of being displayed in a legible form. (2) For the purposes of clause (a) of subsection (1); (a) the criterion for assessing the integrity of the document, record, information, communication or transaction is whether the same has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the addition of any endorsement or any change which arises in the normal course of communication, storage or display; and (b) The standard for reliability of the assurance shall be assessed having regard to the purpose for which the document, record, information, communication or transaction was generated and all other relevant circumstances."

14. The admissibility of evidence collected through modern devices and techniques has been the subject of much discussion and debate. In the case of "Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan" (PLD 2019 SC 675), this very issue was explored at length. While the court held that digital evidence can be relied upon as the basis for conviction in a criminal case, it also made clear that certain guidelines must be followed to ensure the admissibility of such evidence. Following are the guidelines for admissibility of an audio tape or video in evidence and the mode and manner of proving the same before the court: i. No audio tape or video could be relied upon by a court until the tons proved to be genuine and not tampered with or doctored. ii. A forensic report prepared by an analyst of the Provincial Forensic Science Agency in respect of an audio tape or video was per se admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of section 9(3) of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act, 2007. iii. Under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Slanadat Order, 1984 it land in the discretion of a court to allow any evidence becoming available through an audio tape or video to be produced. iv. Even where a court allowed an audio tape or video to be produced in evidence, such audio tape or video had to be proved in accordance with the law of evidence. v. Accuracy of the recording must be proven and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be produced so as to rule out my possibility of tampering with the record. vi. An audio tape or video sought to be produced in evidence must be the actual record of the conversation as and when it was made or of the event as and when it took place. vii. The person recording the conversation or event had to be produced. viii. The person recording the conversation or event must produce the audio tape or video himself. ix. The audio tape or video must be played in the court. x. An audio tape or video produced before a court as evidence ought to be clearly audible or viewable. xi. The person recording the conversation or event must identify the voice of the person speaking or the person seen or the voice or person seen may be identified by any other person who recognized such voice or person. xii. Any other person present at the time of making of the conversation or taking pace of the event may also testify in support of the conversation heard in the audio tape or the event shown in the video. xiii. The voices recorded or the persons shown must be properly identified. xiv. The evidence sought to be produced through an audio tape or video had to be relevant to the controversy and otherwise admissible. xv. Safe custody of the audio tape or video after its preparation till production before the court must be proved. xvi. The transcript of the audio tape or video must have been prepared under independent supervision and control. xvii. The person recording an audio tape or video may be a person whose part of routine duties was recording of an audio tape or video and he should not be a person who has recorded the audio tape or video for the purpose of laying a trap to procure evidence. xviii. The source of an audio tape or video becoming available had to be disclosed. xix. The date of acquiring the audio tape or video by the person producing it before the court ought to be disclosed by such person. xx. An audio tape or video produced at a late stage of a judicial proceeding may be looked at with suspicion. xxi. A formal application had to be filed before the court by the person desiring an audio tape or video to be brought on the record of the case as evidence."

15. Furthermore, we have also gone through 2019 SCMR 1982 (Ali Raza alias Peter and others v. The State and others) where ambit of digital evidence was discussed and it was held: "Defense objection on the admission of forensic evidence, establishing appellants' identity as well as participation in the crime does not hold much water. Technological innovations have opened up new avenues of proof to drive home charges. Article 164 of the Order ibid invests the Court with wide powers to make use of evidence generated by modern devices and techniques; Articles 46-A and 78-A of the Order ibid as well as provisions of Electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002) have smoothened the procedure to receive such evidence, subject restrictions/limitations provided therein. This Court has undertaken an exhaustive survey of jurisprudence on the subject in the case of Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza and 2 others v. The Federation of Pakistan and others rendered on 23.8.2019 in Constitution Petitions Nos. 10, 11 and 12 of 2019 and authoritatively settled parameters to receive forensic evidence through modern devices."

16. The appellants put forth the argument that for digital evidence to be admissible in court, strict adherence to the 21 guidelines highlighted in the aforementioned case is mandatory. However, this assertion is misconceived as the guidelines outlined in the Ishtiaq Ahmed case do not present a conjunctive checklist to be scrupulously followed. Instead, they offer a set of principles that may be employed in demonstrating the authenticity of digital evidence presented in court. Ultimately, the decision of whether digital evidence is admissible or not is at the discretion of court, once its source and reliability has been established. This determination must be made in consideration of the unique facts and circumstances of each individual case. In 2021 SCMR 873 (The State and others v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh and others), the Supreme Court has provided a two-fold test for the proving of digital evidence. This test requires that the evidence in question be both relevant and authentic, and must have been obtained through a reliable and trustworthy source. By applying this test, the court can ensure that only the most reliable and trustworthy digital evidence is admitted into evidence. The conditions includes: i. providing an explanation of how the video was obtained or its source, and, ii. presenting a forensic report to show that the video has not been altered. Failure to meet above referred conditions renders the video evidence invalid in court.

17. In order to discharge the burden, the prosecution has produced PW-13 Masood Ali. Incharge Forensic, who received the reference letter with request for audio and video analysis / comparison in the FIA submitted by Said Wali ASI along with sealed parcel containing three USBs on 16.07.2021 including urdu transcript of video clips. He conducted forensic analysis and prepared audio and video forensic analysis report V.1.0 which is Exh.PAA (comprising of 18 pages back to back) prepared by him with covering letter Exh.P.AB.

18. According to the stance of PW-13, as per forensic analysis it was found that the 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. It was also identified during frame analysis of the video clips that there is no edition or deletion in the videos. PW 13 also conducted spectrogram analysis of audio and video clips and he could not identify any abrupt changes in the pitch which proves the genuineness of audios of these video files. He also conducted voice authentication analysis of audios received in USB 2 with the audios of the video files and found the audio file of Usman Mirza matched with the audios in the video files which depicts strong evidence and gave the verbal scale of 3.22. The 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. PW.13 also received letter for forensic analysis and retrieval of data stored in three mobile phones I-tell, Iphone 11 pro max and Iphone 12 pro max, however, during analysis it was found that Iphone 12 pro max was reset, further it was identified to be at configuration stage which depicts that phone was not used after it was reset last time. Whereas, mobile phone I-tell was found password protected and the protection could not be exploited without risk of loss of data. He also conducted the forensic analysis of Techno mobile, but the said video was not found, whereas, the Samsung mobile phone showed error in booting process and Iphone could not be processed due to battery and display issues. This technical expert holds a Master's degree in Computer Science, and is working at the NR3C laboratory of the FIA. This laboratory is duly certified and accredited by the Government of Pakistan, granting it the authority to scrutinize and analyze video and audio recordings. The technical expert has been cross-examined at length whose qualification and expertise were brought on record from the defence side. He confirmed that he used Loquendo software for video forensic and M5 for audio forensic and acknowledged that more advanced softwares were also available. PW.13 has done his digital forensic training from United States department of justice, training on introduction to digital forensic and investigations from Australian police which includes audio and video forensic. This aspect was brought on record during the course of cross-examination from the said expert. He also acknowledged that at the time of analysis of video files date and time of video files could not be recognized as it requires the original device from which these videos were captured. The main aim of video analysis is to determine whether there is any editing in the videos or not.

19. While considering the above cross-examination of the technical expert of prosecution PW.13, the prosecution was unable to recover any aspect of technical failure or objection in the forensic analysis report prepared by PW.13 of the audio and video forensic in this case.

20. This court is of the view that the prosecution in order to discharge the burden of digital electronic evidence produced the expert PW.13 Masood Ali and letter from SSP Investigation, for trend analysis, whose expertise were acknowledged during the course of cross-examination as well as his status being an expert was not denied, therefore, at this stage we have attended the proposition while considering another technical expert evidence PW.19 Asma Majeed, who received a request for forensic / audio analysis of suspect along with two parcels containing one USB and other containing three USBs. She conducted forensic analysis and prepared her audio forensic analysis report comprising of fifteen pages Exh.P.AQ. As per her report, the result came out to be 1.81 with suspect score 2.73 which depicts moderate evidence. The question voice matched with the suspect's voice. She also prepared the forensic of USB Exh.P.39, and therefore, at this stage we have two technical analysis reports. Firstly, Exh.PAA prepared by PW. 13, Masood Ali, Deputy Director Forensics, CCW HQ-FIA for Audio / Video Forensics Analysis. The report contains framed pictures of mega pixels placed on record in which two victims were clearly identified with principal accused Muhammad Usman Ibrar and in the facts and findings it was referred as strong evidence to support that sample audio evidence of accused Muhammad Usman Ibrar is the same as question voice.

21. Secondly, the Exh.PAQ Audio Forensic analysis Report confirms the moderate evidence to support that suspect voice of Muhammad Khan is same as the question voice.

22. We have also gone through the Exh.P.29/ (1-6), the transcript of videos containing videos of 53 seconds, 28 seconds, 45 seconds, and 53 seconds, which confirms the ordeal by two victims at the hands of Usman Ibrar, Mohib Khan, Farhan Shaheen, Hafiz Atta-ur-Rehman and Zuhrish, confirming the conduct of all the appellants in unequivocal terms.

23. Moreover, the appellants have contended that in light of the Ishtiaq Ahmed case, the individual responsible for creating or producing the video must be produced before the court in order for the digital evidence to be admissible. In this regard, the learned State Counsel, Ms. Khadija All, Advocate, referred to Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Pakistan, which safeguards against double punishment and self-incrimination while emphasizing that the right of an individual to refrain from being witness against oneself is a fundamental right. Should the maker or author of the video be compelled to appear before the court as a witness against themselves it would constitute a severe infringement upon their fundamental rights. Based on this reasoning, a distinction is to be drawn between crimes of a sexual nature and other offences. Instances of sexual abuse must be treated with a careful approach to ensure that justice is served and the recording of a conversation as was the case in the Ishtiaq Ahmed s case cannot be at the same threshold as recording of a sexual offence.

24. Beside this aspect we have also gone through the video evidence in court and the said video expressed horrific details of criminality which have been confirmed through the technical experts who have submitted their reports to confirm the digital evidence and on the basis of this technical evidence which were positive in nature and of a primary evidence with positive reports the conviction has to be given effect. OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 354-A P.P.C

25. The primary charge against all the appellants is under section 154-A P.P.C., and it has been argued by the appellant's side that this offence is not made out as essential elements of the said section are missing. The said section is reproduced hereunder: "354A. Assault or use of criminal force to woman and stripping her of her clothes. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman and strips her of her clothes and, in that condition, exposes her to the public view, shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." The Supreme Court in 2009 SCMR 913 (Qadir Shah v. The State) has ruled that in order to apply the penal provisions of Section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, two conditions must be met: i. Firstly, there should be stripping off the clothes of the victim, and, j. Secondly, the victim, in that condition, must be exposed to the public view. A detailed discussion has been made regarding the first essential element in the foregoing paragraphs. As for the second element i.e. public view, it will be discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. PUBLIC VIEW

26. The term 'pubic view' has not been defined in the Penal Code. The Lahore High Court in 1989 PCr.LJ 1453 Lahore (Karam Ali v. State) defined the term to "mean and include seeing or looking by the people of a nation, state or community, as a whole. In this case, the Court relied upon the definitions of public provided in section 12 of the P.P.C. which includes any class of public or community" and section 144(3) of the Cr.P.C. which "includes members of the public already in the locality as residents as well as visitors from outside". The Court also relied upon the dictionary meaning of 'public' provided in Webster's Dictionary, as "belonging to, concerning, or pertaining to the people of a nation, state or community, as a whole-known by, or open to the knowledge of all or most people, as he will make this information public", and 'view' as "a seeing or looking, as in inspection or examination, in sight", to reach the definition of public view. In the Karam Ali case (supra), the Court observed that the offence was committed in the backyard of a house and viewed by the inmates of the house, and therefore does not fall within the purview of exposed to the public view. In light of these observations, the Court held that in the absence of any evidence demonstrating the commission of the offence viewed by the public at large, the offence under section 354-A, P.P.C. is not made out, and would fairly and squarely fall under section 354, P.P.C. The excerpt reads as: "From the evidence, it appears that this ingredient of the offence exposes her to the public view is missing in the present case. I find substantial force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the penal provisions are to be construed strictly and liberal construction is not permissible. Offence under section 354-A, P.P.C. is not proved unless the woman is exposed to public view. In the present case, the evidence brought on the record falls short of this definition, because neither Mst. Sajida Bibi P.W.5 was exposed to any other member of the public except the accused and inmates of the house, nor there is evidence on the record that the so called place was a public place." Beside the above case of Karam Ali (supra) we have also gone through the case-laws reported as 2009 SCMR 913 (Qadir Shah v. State), 2012 MLD [Karachi] 824 (Siddique Masih v. State), PLD 2005 [Peshawar] 128 (Saifullah Khan v. State), PLD 2008 [Lahore] 308 (Karam Dad v. State), 2013 MLD [Peshawar] 395 (Muhammad Abdullah v. The State through Abdul Qudus), 1996 PCr.LJ 620 (Zulfiqar v. The State), 2004 PCr.LJ 1972 (Karachi) (Hassnain Ali v. The State), 2011 PCr.LJ 717 [Karachi] (Wahid Bux v. Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Mirpur Mathelo), and 2000 YLR 2081 [Lahore] (Rukhsana Yasmeen v. Muhammad Din) whereby, only tearing of clothes of victim and not stripping who was not exposed to public or removal of dupatta from the head of lady or dragging and stripping off women in the backyard of the house not viewed by general public only covers the offence under section 354 P.P.C, whereas, where the victim has been dragged and stripped off from the clothes in a privately owned land which is freely accessible to public or dragging victim in a public street in naked position, even without presence of general public covers the offence under section 354-A P.P.C. ORDINARY MEANINGS OF 'PUBLIC' AND 'VIEW'

27. As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in 2016 PLD 534 Supreme Court (Chairman, Pakistan Railway, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad v. Shah Jehan Shah), when a word has not been defined in a statute, its ordinary dictionary meaning is to be looked at. Therefore, in order to reach at a proper understanding of the term 'public view', it is crucial to analyze the ordinary dictionary meanings of the terms 'public' and 'view.' According to Webster's Dictionary (supra), public means: "known by, or open to the knowledge of all or most people, as he will make this information public." The Chambers Dictionary (10th Edition) defines public as of or belonging to the people, generally known, in open view, unconcealed, not private. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (9th Edition) defines public as connected with ordinary people in society in general, known to people in general. Webster's Dictionary (supra) defines view as "a seeing or looking; as' in inspection or examination, in sight. According to Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (9th Edition), view is defined as "an act, possibility or opportunity of looking range or field of sight, whole extent seen, a prospect, wide or distant extent seen, that which is seen; an aspect or a scene, the picture of a seen." MEANING OF PUBLIC VIEW AND ITS APPLICABILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE

28. After a breakdown of the two words and their meanings, a conjunctive meaning of the word public view would mean "seeing or looking by all or most people or open to the knowledge of all or most people" The meaning of "public view", as discussed above does not restrict its applicability in the traditional sense. However, the recent technological developments throughout the world, and its incorporation in our legal system and landscape would attribute digital views the same status given to traditional form of viewing by the public, especially in the modern technological world where participation and viewing of public through digital means has become the norm, and is being widely adopted in various sectors and practices, including in meetings, seminars and lectures that can now be conducted online and accessed by a wide audience. The definition of public view must be expanded to accommodate the modern digital age. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret the term more broadly to ensure it is inclusive of the various ways in which people can participate and view events in this digitalized world.

29. In the present case, the technical analysis report dated 12-12-2021 Exh.PAE conducted to determine how many people had seen and shared the video attached with the trend #ArrestUsmanMirza, confirmed that the said trend was shared by 558 accounts with 533 original tweets, whereas the hashtag #UsmanMirza was shared by 3487 accounts with 721 original tweets. Hence, it shows that approximately the trend has been watched and shared by more than 100k (100,000) times.

30. Moreover, the Indian Supreme Court in Swaran Singh [2008 AIR SCW 5758)] has expounded upon the expression 'public view' and marked a distinction between public view and public place to hold the following: ....Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression 'place within public view with the expression 'public place', A place can be a private place but yet within the public view."

31. In the present case, the appellants have raised the argument that since the alleged offence was committed in a private place, resultantly it cannot be said to be viewed by the public and therefore does not meet the essential elements of section 354-A. However, this argument is not well-founded, as the said element requires only the commission of offence to be viewed by the public, regardless of wherever it is committed.

32. The above referred discussion confirms 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 is to be considered within the meaning of public view owing to the changing digital times of modern age. CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF IDENTIFICATION PARADE.

33. The Investigation Officer has put tremendous effort to prove the case of prosecution by way of conducting identification parade to identify the unknown suspects mentioned in the FIR. As a result whereof, victims were able to identify three accused, namely Omer Bilal, Mohib Khan and Rehan Aslam and assigned them with specific roles related to the crime referred as Exh.PV in which Asad Raza victim PW.17 has identified Omer Bilal Marwat who has not objected to this Identification parade Exh.PV/2 and he has been assigned with the specific role of being stationed next to the main door responsible for the act of opening and closing it. Reference can be made to the statement of victim Asad Raza during the course of identification parade, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:

34. The accused at the same time confirmed his presence and referred the role of Usman Mirza, appellant. Similarly, victim Sundas Tahir also confirmed the role of Omer Bilal and Mohib Khan and she had stated that Omer Bilal was witnessing the entire scene and criminal act of other co-accused including Usman Mirza. The accused has not objected to this aspect, rather confirmed his presence in the incident. The victim also confirmed the role of Mohib Khan as: The accused Mohib Khan has not raised any objection on the identification parade. The other victim Asad Raza had also given a similar statement against Mohib Khan. Sundas Tahir victim in her statement (Exh PX) confirmed the role of Rehan Aslam who had made the video, along with his description. The said accused also not objected to the identification parade rather confirmed that:

35. All of these reports support the existing evidence on record and confirm the acts of the appellants, who have been duly identified by the victims in three separate identification reports, demonstrate their specific roles, hence there is no doubt qua the role of each appellant if seen in juxtaposition with the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victims Sundas Tahir and Asad Raza read with the identification parade report, in which three of the appellants were duly identified. CALL DATA RECORD

36. We have gone through the call data record of all the accused persons and victims referred as Exh P.18 to Exh.P28 comprising of Asad Raza, Sundas Tahir, Muhammad Usman Ibrar, Farhan Shaheen, Hafiz Atta-ur-Rehman, Ali Ibrar, Mohib Khan, Zehrosh, Rehan Hussain Mughal and of Omer Bilal, and reach to the conclusion that all the accused persons and victims were present in Sector E-11 from 11 PM onwards on November 18, 2020. The same could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence to the extent of crime scene location and presence of all the accused and victims during the same time at the place of occurrence. RECOVERY MEMO. OF PAINTINGS, DECORATION PIECE, AND Piece OF RUG FROM THE PLACE OF OCCURRENCE

37. The recovered items, as seen in the video evidence (Exh.PE) from the place of occurrence, including a painting Exh.P.6/(1-7), decoration piece Exh.P7, and a piece of rug, were taken into possession by the Investigation Officer in the presence of witnesses. Those recovered articles were duly seen in the videos and rightly collected by the I.O for the purposes of confirmation of the place of occurrence. RECOVERY OF CLOTHES OF THE VICTIMS WORN IN THE VIDEO EVIDENCE

38. Another piece of evidence is the shirt of the victim Sundas Tahir (Exh.P17) and sweater of the other victim Asad Raza (Exh.P 16) worn by them at the time of incident, collected through recovery memo. (Exh.PK) as seen in the videos. This piece of evidence also has to be seen in corroboration with the primary evidence of the captured video along with the photogrammetry test and audio recognition of the appellants. HOSTILE WITNESSES

39. The prosecution case took a turn when both the victims Asad Raza (PW 17) and Sundas Tahir (PW 16) while appearing in witness box during trial resiled from their original stance with a common statement, which reads as follows: "Statement of Sundas Tahir PW.16: The accused present appearing before the court and nominated in the FIR are not my accused. They are not same people who allegedly molested me and the persons who were shown in the video are not the same person who allegedly had performed his abdominal act. I do not want to depose against the accused present in the court because they have no concern whatsoever with the allege offence. Any role ascribed to the present accused has not been affirmed by them with me and they have not participated. I have also not nominated any accused nor I made any statement before the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. have not recorded any statement during course of investigation before the Magistrate, I submitted my affidavit Exh.P-AJ without coercion and undue influence. Statement of Asad Raza PW.17; The accused present appearing before the court and nominated in the FIR are not my accused. They are not same people who allegedly nominated and the persons who were shown in the video are not the same person who present before the court as accused person. I do not want to depose against the accused present in the court because they have no concern whatsoever with the alleged offence. Any role ascribed to the present accused has not been affirmed by them with me and they have not participated in the alleged occurrence. I have also not nominated any accused nor I made any statement before the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. nor I have assigned any role whatsoever. I have not recorded any statement during course of investigation before Magistrate. I submitted my affidavit Exl P-AK without coercion and undue influence." Both the victims were declared hostile thereafter and learned ADDP thoroughly cross-examined them. Though, Sundas Tahir (PW.16) denied each and every detail of the entire case, including her own presence during the course of her examination-in-chief regarding extortion, statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., identification parade and role assigned to each accused. However, during the course of cross-examination PW 16 acknowledged the following aspect: I do not know that in consequence of video gone viral some persons are behind the bars and few are on bail. I do not know that the video attributed to me and Asad Raza was subsequently verified by experts in NR3C FIA. I have installed facebook, twitter, instagram and other social media applications on my mobile phone, but hardly I get time to use the said applications. When the videos come got unfolded, my family members inquired from me about my involvement and I replied and had denied the said video."

40. On the other hand, the other victim Asad Raza (PW.17) who was also declared hostile witness, though denied the incident, but during the course of cross-examination admitted the following facts: "It is correct that the details of occurrence are in my knowedge. I connot tell the detail of said occurrence. I do not remember the color of my shirt and shirt of Mst. Sundas worn on the day of occurrence. I do not remember that I had worn the sweater dark gray color and Mst. Sundas worn the multicolor sweater on the day of occurrence and I handed it over to Shafqat Inspector on 30.07.2021. (At this stage the learned prosecutor made request to play the video clips in the court on request of learned ADDP, parcel of P-11/1-3 is de-sealed and played the USB on court system). I have seen the video clip wherein I have worn the dark gray color shirt. Mst. Sundas worn white color sweater in the video. It is incorrect to suggest that Mst. Sundas has worn a off white multicolor sweater. I have seen the paintings hung on the wall in the video clip. It is incorrect to suggest that said pantings were taken into possession by the police and I signed the recovery memo. Ex.P-E. It is correct that the persons appearing in video clip are doing obscene acts with me and Mst. Sundas. I do not know the accused Usman Mirza was having pistol in his hand on the day of occurrence. I cannot tell that Usman Mirza is wearing black color clothes and standing in betweer me and Mst. Sundas" The victim Asad Raza PW 17 was not even willing to answer some questions asked during the course of cross-examination, example of such instance is referred as: "Q: In the video clips, you are seen being beaten up by the accused on different parts of your body. Which part of your body was mostly affected in consequence of physical torture? Ans. I do not want to answer this question."

41. As regards to the status of a hostile witness, the Supreme Court has ruled in PLD 2007 [SC] 249 (Dr. Javaid Akhtar v. State) that Courts would be justified to ignore the statement of such witness. However, the statement cannot be completely left out of consideration, rather it is ought to be considered with utmost care and caution and the testimony of hostile witness must not be left out of consideration for mere reason that he did not support the prosecution case, rather the statement/evidence of such witness be considered with utmost care and caution subject to strong confirmatory evidence of independent character as laid down in PLD 2007 Supreme Court 223 (Muhammad Suleman v. State).

42. In 1972 SCMR 597 (Zarid Khan v. Gulsher), the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower fora to disbelieve the testimony of a witness who had turned hostile, and ruled that the entire evidence of the witness should have been taken into consideration to see whether any part of his evidence was worthy of belief in the light of other evidence". Applying the same principle, the Supreme Court in 1984 SCMR 465 (Muhammad Sadiq v. State) disregarded the statement of the hostile witness for giving concession to the accused by holding that in view of positive reliable evidence of another witness, their participation could be established. The veracity of a hostile witness must be established first, and his evidence must be inherently probable and must be consistent with other circumstantial evidence. However, the evidence of such a witness in a criminal case requires corroboration, but the primary question in a case is not whether the witness is a hostile witness or a disinterested witness, but whether he is an honest witness or a dishonest witness. Sometimes, even a hostile witness may speak the truth, whilst a totally disinterested witness may be bribed or pressurized into giving false evidence as held in 1979 SCMR 214 (Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Sarwar). The statement of a hostile witness regarding the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence is to be established from the circumstantial evidence in the light of circumstances of each case with the view to ascertain as to what truth actually flows from their statement, whether favoring the prosecution or the defence as held in PLD 2003 SC 365 (Niaz Ahmad v. The State). Furthermore, as ruled by the Supreme Court in 1983 SCMR 513 (Khurshid Ahmed v. State), a hostile witness is open to judicial scrutiny, and the factors that might have led him/her to resile from their earlier statement must also be taken into consideration.

43. While going through the above laid down dictums and judicial pronouncements regarding a hostile witness, this Court is of the view that in the present case, nothing, is left in favour of the appellants. It has been established from the cross-examination and justification given by different accused as well as by the ADDP as well as by the Prosecutor that certain statements were made by the victims and the appellants to accommodate appellants / accused, but the overall impression gathered by this court confirms the commission of offence by the appellants. The main purpose of judicial proceedings is to find out the truth. Evidence of a hostile witnesses remains admissible and conviction can be made on such testimony, however, for safe administration of criminal justice, necessary corroboration is required. The statement of a hostile witness cannot be brushed aside altogether and the same can be taken into consideration if the statement corroborates with other available evidence on record. The court is bound to consider and determine as to whether any part of such evidence was worthy of belief if examined in light of other incriminating material and evidence, which had come on record as held in PLD 2004 [SC] 334 (Sarfaraz Gul v. State). Therefore, at this stage both the victims who even though were declared hostile, but their few answers clearly confirm the incident and no favour can be extended to the appellants by their denial of the incident as the corroborative evidence of identification parade, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C along with forensic evidence confirms the role of each appellant. STATEMENTS OF VICTIMS UNDERSECTION 164 Cr.P.C.

44. Both the victims PW 16 and PW 17 got recorded their statements under section 164 Cr.P.C, the statement of victim Asad Raza referred as Exh.PU was recorded by Aneel Saeed Assistant Commissioner PW.9 and of Sundas Tahir Exh.PZ was recorded by Dr Sania Hameed Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Islamabad PW

11. Both the victims provided each and every detail and description of the occurrence of the crime, the time, mode and manner in which each of the appellant had committed the crime along with the specific role of each appellant in detail. Both these statements were recorded by Magistrates who were also cross-examined at length on different technical aspects, and nothing fruitful was achieved by the defence. Both the Magistrates while recording the statements observed the binding procedure with precaution in terms of section 364 Cr.P.C. read with section 164 Cr.P.C and section 14 of The Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act of 2021.

45. The Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act of 2021 was enacted with the objective of effectively addressing the issue of sexual abuse and protecting the rights of victims. According to Section 14 of the Act, a victim's statement, as mandated by Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must be recorded only once, notwithstanding any other existing law. Direct cross-examination of the victim is not permitted for the accused, instead, their legal representatives are granted the opportunity to question the victim. Additionally, the court has the discretion to ask relevant questions directly to the victim or consider questions put forth by the accused. This approach ensures the preservation of the victim's statement as crucial evidence and aims to prevent the victim from being subjected to repeated trauma caused by multiple statements.

46. In the present case, the requirements under section 164 Cr.P.C viz a viz section 14 of Anti-Rape (Investigations and Trial) Act, 2021, are complied with, therefore statements of the both the victims would be considered final and conclusive against the appellants. CONCLUSION

17. The case of the prosecution revolves around the incident that took place on the night of 18th-19th November, 2020 when the two victims i.e. Sundas Tahir and Asad Raza, PW-16 and PW-17 were subjected to harassment and use of criminal force by the appellants, who forcibly entered into the flat, outraged the modesty of Sundas Tahir stripped off hur clothes, exposed her to the public view by recording their videos, which were uploaded on social media platform of twitter. This aspect can visibly be seen in the video evidence Exh.P-11/1 to 3 along with transcription Exh.P-20/1 to 6 relied upon by the prosecution, which has been seen by this Court, and duly proved in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. The digital video analysis report has confirmed its authenticity and reliability. The technical analysis report has confirmed the identity of the accused, which is further substantiated with the PFSA report confirming the facial recognition of accused Usman Ibrar, Hafiz Atta-ur-Rehman and Muhammad Adaris Qayyum Butt from the video The photogrammetric test available on record confirms the identification of the three appellants, if read in conjunction with the identification parade report whereby accused Rehan Aslam, Mohib Khan and Omer Bilal were duly identified by the victims. Similarly, the audio analysis expert witness confirmed the audio of two of the appellants in the video, and the transcript thereof further confirms that all the appellants have shared a common intention towards the commission of the crime, such aspect was duly corroborated with the testimony expert evidence of PW-13, the Forensic Analyst. Masood Ali, Incharge Forensic, the technical analysis report Exh.PAE which confirms the trend on the social media platform containing the accounts of original tweets confirming that the video was watched and shared more than 100,000 times.

48. The recoveries made of the weapon used by the principal accused Usman Ibrar on his pointation, as well as of the clothes worn by the victims at the time of occurrence, along with the paintings, decoration piece and a the rug as seen in the video, further corroborate with the video evidence. The trend analysis report has confirmed that the video which became viral was seen by more than a hundred thousand people, which satisfies the essential ingredient of 'exposed to the public view' under section 354-A, Cr.P.C, in view of the changing digital times of modern age.

49. Furthermore, the statements of the victims under section 164 Cr.P.C give horrific details of the crime, corroborated by the material available on record. Though the appellants contend that both the victims had become hostile after they resiled from their original stance, however the cross-examination of both the victims have confirmed their presence and the commission of the crime by the appellants, which has been considered in juxtaposition with the statements of the appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C.

50. In nutshell following effects are visibly seen in the evidence to prove the offence/charge levelled against the appellants: a. Victims Sundas Tahir and Asad Raza were assaulted by using violence by the appellants and put them under fear that immediate violence would be caused to them. b. Victims Sundas Tahir and Asad Raza were detained unlawfully at the time of crime. c. The consent of both the victims Sundos Tahir and Asad Raza were obtained under fear with threat of life by force with the help of more than five accused persons/appellants. d. Victims' clothes were removed and they were stripped off under threat without their consent. e. Victims were compelled by force to remain naked in front of camera by force under fear of being put to bodily harm in case of refusal and they were assaulted. f. Victims were compelled to have sex by force in front of all the appellants. g. Entire incident of stripping off clothes of victims was recorded by appellants, who collectively put the victims under fear by using force and shared the common intention, enjoyed the event of striping off victims in front of camera which has been confirmed through the conversation and video evidence recorded and exhibited in this case. h. All the appellants collectively aided and abetted in the commission of crime, which explains their complete participation who were present at the crime scene voluntarily as well as contributed as accessory to crime despite the fact that their roles are different in the video evidence. i. Victim Sundas Tahir was sexually abused by the appellants while she was naked by touching her body against her will and said act was also exposed to general public through video evidence. Keeping in view the above admitted facts we are of the considered view that appellants have assaulted the victims by force, stripped them off and exposed them to public view through video clips recorded by them on social media platform, whereby, the video clips were viewed by more than one hundred thousand persons. Such aspect has been established by modern devices and techniques in terms of proviso added to Article 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the same is relied upon for conviction of the appellants. Furthermore, the appellants have put the victims under wrongful confinement under threat with criminal intimidation along with insulting modesty and causing sexual harassment to the victims, as such, all the ingredients of the offences with which the appellant have been charged are fulfilled

51. All these aspects have rightly been appreciated by the trial court. All the accused have rightfully been convicted under law by the trial court. No exception has been carved out in favour of the appellants, who are guilty of committing a horrific offence against the victims and humiliating the entire nation, hence, they deserve no leniency In view of the above, the instant appeals are DISMISSED while maintaining the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants. JK/88/Isl. Appeals dismissed.