LAHORE: A hearing took place in the Sessions Court Lahore on the private complaint filed against YouTuber Rajab Butt and other accused over the alleged rape of TikToker Ayesha Jutt, but charges could not be framed because of the unavailability of counsel for the accused.
Additional Sessions Judge Zafar Yab Chadhar heard the complaint filed by Ayesha Jutt. During the hearing, all the accused — Rajab Butt, Salman Haider, Abdul Rehman, Jahangir and Jawad — appeared before the court and marked their attendance.
During proceedings, a junior counsel told the court that Barrister Mian Ali Ashfaq and Advocate Rana Abdul Maroof were occupied in other cases, and requested that a fresh date be fixed for the hearing.
The court accepted the request and adjourned the hearing of the case until 3 September.
According to police, a case is registered against the accused at Nawab Town police station and legal proceedings in the matter are continuing.
The proceeding before the Sessions Court is an istaghasa — a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — which runs alongside, and is distinct from, the FIR registered at Nawab Town police station.
The distinction has practical significance for readers following the case. A private complaint allows a complainant to bring a matter directly before a magistrate or sessions judge rather than depending on the police investigation. It is used most often where a complainant believes the police challan is incomplete, where the investigation has recommended discharge of some accused, or where the complainant wishes to bring additional persons before the court.
The stage the case has reached — framing of charge — is the point at which the court formally puts the allegations to the accused and records their plea. Until charges are framed, no evidence is recorded and the trial has not begun. Adjournments at this stage are common in Pakistani criminal practice, and counsel’s engagement elsewhere is among the most frequently cited grounds.
The adjournment is routine; the pattern it belongs to is not.
Delay at the charge-framing stage is one of the principal mechanisms by which sexual violence prosecutions in Pakistan attenuate. Each adjournment extends the period during which a complainant remains exposed to pressure to compromise, and the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021 was enacted specifically to compress these timelines — providing for special courts and for trials to be concluded within four months.
Whether this case is being tried under that framework, and whether its timelines are being applied, is a question the reporting should track rather than assume.
A second observation concerns the media environment around this case. Both the complainant and the principal accused are figures with substantial social media followings, and the matter has been litigated online at length. That creates two distinct risks: prejudicial commentary that a court may have to address, and the harassment of a complainant in a manner that has, in other cases, preceded withdrawal of the complaint. Readers should treat the allegations as untested. The accused have not been convicted of anything, and the complainant is entitled to have her case heard without a parallel trial on timelines.
The Lahore Times will report the outcome of the 3 September hearing.
-with additional input by Shaheen Atiq
Leave a Reply