Erum Sajad Gull, J.:- The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 20.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha whereby the appellant was tried in case FIR No.113 dated 15.05.2011 registered under section 376 PPC at Police Station Baghtanwala, District Sargodha. The appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:- "22. ...hence he is accordingly convicted u/s 376, PPC and sentenced to undergo ten years R.I and fine of Rs.100,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, the convict will further undergo S.I for Six Months. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.PC is also extended in favour of accused."
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the FIR were reiterated by the complainant Bashir Ahmad (PW.8) in his statement before the learned trial court, are reproduced as under:- "I have two daughters and two sons. All are unmarried. On 14/15.05.11, I alongwith my brother Muhammad Ameer and Saifullah (nephew/Bhanjah) were sleeping in my house situated at village Mangni. Mst. Ghazala Bibi, my daughter went to ease herself, after some time, at about 12 O" clock, we all went out to search her, when we reached abandon house of Alah Ditta Vains, we heard hue & cry and we entered in the said house, where we saw that accused Azam was committing zina with my daughter Mst. Gazala, whereas accused Naeem was standing near, we caught hold Mst.
Gazala and secured her, whereas accused persons succeeded to run away. On 15.05.2011, we went to police station and on my written application, Ex.P-C, FIR, Exh.P-C/1 was registered against the accused. On the same day, I.O visited the place of occurrence, rough site plan was prepared by the I.O on the pointation of Pws. On the same day Mst. Gazala was medically examined by W.M.O THQ Baghtanwala."
3. After registration of the case, the police proceeded with the investigation and on completion of the same, report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the trial court and the trial court after observing all the legal formalities framed the charge against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty thereafter, the trial commenced.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Abdul Razaq 1726/C appeared as PW.1. Dr. Shamim Akhtar appeared as PW.2. Dr. Muhammad Zahid Shah appeared as PW.3. Muhammad Afzal 803/C appeared as PW.4. Zafar Abbas ASI appeared as PW.5. Mst. Ghazala Bibi victim appeared as PW.6. Saif Ullah appeared as PW.7. Muhammad Bashir complainant appeared as PW.8. Ghulam Shabbir SI appeared as PW.9. The learned ADPP gave up PW Muhammad Ameer being unnecessary and while tendering report of DNA as Exh.PH and copy of FIR No.13/12 Police Station ACE/HQ as Mark-A closed the prosecution evidence.
5. After recording the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. in which he refuted all the allegations levelled against him. In answer to the question as to why the case against him and why the prosecution witnesses had deposed against him, the appellant replied as under:- "Pws deposed falsely against me, just due to close relation with the complainant and victim, as Pw- 7 is nephew of complainant and first cousin of victim. Instant case was registered against me falsely, due to previous grudge and political rivalry between my father and complainant. As complainant was dismissed from Ranger on oral, as well as, documentary proof, of his father, who was also employee in Pak Army and due to this grudge, I have falsely been implicated in this case."
The appellant neither opted to appear as his own witness under section 340(2) Cr.P.C., nor did he produced any evidence in his defence.
6. After conclusion of the trial and hearing both the sides, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that:-
(i) the judgment of the trial court dated 20.06.2012 is against law and facts hence, is liable to be set-aside;
(ii) that the story of the prosecution is improbable and not believable;
(iii) that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt and the learned trial court erred in law and facts by convicting the appellant;
(iv) and lastly submitted for the acceptance of the appeal of the appellant;
8. On the other hand, learned APG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that:-
(i) The prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant with solid evidence and prayed for the dismissal of the present appeal.
9. Arguments heard and the record perused.
10. The victim Mst. Ghazala Bibi is a 14 years old unmarried minor girl who was raped by the appellant Muhammad Azam. There is nothing on record to prove that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case. In the FIR one Naeem was also nominated as an accused but as he did not rape the victim he was declared innocent during police investigation and was then acquitted by the trial court. The complainant has not assailed the acquittal of co-accused Naeem.
11. The occurrence was committed in the intervening night of 14/15.05.2011 and the FIR was then registered on 15.05.2011 at 02:30-pm. The police station was five kilometer away so it can be said that the FIR was lodged promptly. In such cases, delay in registering the FIR is not fatal. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Mehboob Ahmad versus The State (1999 SCMR 1102) that :- "A victim of rape should not be penalized on account of ostensible delay in reporting what she has undergone. On the contrary, kindness, encouragement and understanding are requirements to approbate a victim's difficult decision to purge the society of perpetrators of such heinous offences".
12. The witnesses who appeared before the trial court were the victim herself as PW.6, her father Muhammad Bashir appeared as PW.8 and her cousin who lived in the same compound Saif Ullah appeared as PW.7. The victim in her statement categorically stated that the appellant raped her while his co-accused Naeem stood nearby threatening her that if she raised an alarm, she would be done to death. Her father Muhammad Bashir (PW.8), her cousin Saifullah (PW.7) and Muhammad Ameer PW who were searching for her, were attracted to the spot on hearing her hue and cry. Father of the victim, Muhammad Bashir (PW.8) and cousin Saifullah (PW.7) corroborated the statement of the victim. The reason why the victim went out of her house in the middle of the night was to ease herself which is a natural phenomenon in the villages and when the wife of the complainant woke up and found the victim missing she woke up Muhammad Bashir (PW.8) who with his other relatives went searching for the victim.
13. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Shamim Akhtar (PW.2) who in her statement categorically stated that in her opinion, the victim was raped. As the victim was wearing the same clothes that she was wearing when she was raped, swabs were taken in dry form and even vaginal swa bs of the victim were taken which were sent for matching with the semen of the accused/appellant. Dr. Shamim Akhtar (PW.2) in her cross examination stated that it was not necessary that on tearing of the hymen, blood occurred. The doctor also stated that there were no marks of violence found on the body of the victim. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in "Habibullah versus the State" (2011 SCM R 1665) that when rape has been proved by cogent and concrete evidence, including medical evidence then absence of marks of violence on the body of the victim will itself not negate the prosecution case and conviction could be awarded on the solitary statement of the prosecution alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in another case "Riaz versus The State"(1994 SCM R 358) held that if the statement of the victim is supported by her parents, this in itself would be enough to prove the charge of zina-bil-jabar because when there is no motive for the parents of a minor girl to falsely implicate a person in such a heinous offence it is not believable that they would put their family's honour at stake and ruin the reputation of their minor daughter for life.
14. The appellant was also medically examined by Dr. Muhammad Zahid Shah (PW.3) who declared the appellant medically fit. Sample of the semen of the appellant was taken and sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Punjab for grouping and typing of the sperm in it. The DNA test report was exhibited as Exh.PH according to which the specimen taken from the victim matched with that of the appellant.
15. In his statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C the appellant never took the plea that the victim was not subjected to zina-bil-jabar as she was a consenting party but during trial and before this court the learned counsel argued that zina-bil-jabar was not committed with the victim as she had consented. Even if this argument of the learned counsel is believed for a moment, this would in itself not entitle the appellant for acquittal as consent of a minor was no consent in the eye of law. Reliance is placed on "Abdul Rehman and others versus The State" (2003 P Cr. L J 1298).
16. The Investigating Officer in court tried to make a dent in the prosecution case by stating that there was a bathroom in the house of the complainant and there was no reason why the victim should have gone out of her house to ease herself but the Investigating Officer failed to produce the site plan of the house of the complainant to prove his statement. Bald statement of the Investigating Officer without any substantial evidence cannot be relied upon. Even otherwise, ipsi dixit of the police is not binding on the courts. During police investigation, the appellant was declared guilty for committing zina-bil-jabar with a minor girl.
17. Heinous crimes like such cannot be lightly brushed aside as they corrode the society and destroys the entire family forcibly subjecting the family to shame and disgrace for the rest of their life.
18. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The instant appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and is dismissed. The convictions and sentences of the appellant awarded through the impugned judgment by the trial court, are upheld.