1. RAZA ALI KHAN, J.---The captioned revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2020 passed by learned Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Pattika (Naseerabad).
2. According to FIR lodged at the behest of complainant, Muhammad Adil son of Manzoor Hussain resident of Majhoter , who informed on telephonic call on 27.01.2020 that he is resident of Majhoter , his younger sister namely Insha Bibi aged 11 years told her mother on 26.01.2020, that on 24.01.2020 in the evening she was tying goats in cattle shed when Qari Muhammad Arif son of Abdul Rehman, who has a shop nearby, entered in cattle shed and after closing the door, forcibly committed Zina with her. He after commission of rape, threatened her and then escaped from scene.
3. Upon this aforesaid report, FIR No. 04/2020 was registered against the accused- petitioner in the offences under sections 452, P.C. and 10(2) ZHA. After arrest, accused-petitioner applied to Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Pattika on 11.09.2020 for bail, which was refused vide order dated 18.03.2020. Thereafter , he once again app:--. to Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, on 29.03.2020, whereby due to Cov id-19 emergency , he was conditionally released on bail for two months vide order dated 29.03.2020, however , after few days, in view of order of the Hon'ble apex Court, he surrendered befor e the concerned police and called in question the order of Tehsil Criminal Court, dated 18.03.2020. Accused / petitioner applied to Addl. District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Pattika/Naseerabad on 10.04.2020, whereby , after hearing the parties, rejected the bail petition vide order dated 17.04.2020, hence, the captioned revision petition.
4. The counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that petitioner has been involved in forged and bogus case and no plausible reason has been explained by prosecution. He further contended that complainant has not filed written application rather the FIR has been registered on verbal statement. Counsel further argued that stand of the prosecution is not proved medically because no marks of violence was found on the body of Insha Bibi, and mere rupture of hymen is not conclusive proof of Zina, hence, the case of further inquiry is made out and in view of settled law , where a case of further inquiry is made out, accused is entitled to be released on bail.
5. Counsel for complainant submitted that offences with which the accused has been charged are non-bailable, hence, he is not entitled to be released on bail. He further argued that petitioner committed Zina bil Jabar with a minor child and he does not deserve any leniency and concession of bail.
6. AAG, while adopting the arguments of the counsel for complainant stated that the release of accused in such offence tantamounts to encourage such like offences in the society , hence he is not entitled to be released on bail.
7. He contended chat material available on the record is sufficient to implicate the accused/petitioner with alleged offence.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as AAG, and gone through the record of the case. The matter in hand pertains to bail and it is settled law that at bail stage only tentative assessment is to be made in light of material available on the file. A cursory perusal of record reveals that accused/petitioner is directly nominated in the FIR. Victim/minor girl, aged about 11 years in her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. specifically implicated the petitioner/accused in rape. It is well settled rule of criminal law that sole testimony of the victim of rape is C sufficient for convictio n. Contention of learned counsel for accused/petitioner that he has been charged falsely with ulterior motive is also misconceived because it is not possible for a minor girl of 11 years to falsely implicate the accused/petitioner in such offences specifically in absence of I) any motive, which could remain a stigma not only for her life but also for her family . A similar proposition came under consideration before the apex Court in case titled Musarat Bibi v. Liaquat Ali and another reported as 1990 PCr.LJ 1570, wherein, accused committed adultery with unmarried girl of 14 years under the threat of death whose bail petition was dismissed on sole ground that it was sufficient for rejection of bail that her life was threatened and thereafter she was raped. Bail was cancelled. Relevant observation is as under:-- "I have heard counsel and perused the record. The age of the prosecutrix at the time of registration of the case was 14 years. Learned counsel for the respondent has not said a word why an un married girl of 14 years would involve her reputation in such like cases. No motive or was pointed out by him. I do not agree with the finding of the learned Judge granting bait to the respondent that since no mark of violence were found on the body , therefore, it was a case of further inquiry . It is first informant's own case that her life was threatened and thereafter she was raped, would be a sufficient circumstances to indicate that she could not have resisted. Apart from the first, informant, the police has cited two other witnesses also, who fully supported the prosecution version, yet the learned Court while granting bail did not even discuss them. Since the offence alleged against the respondent fell within the prohibitory clause, therefore, it feel that the concession of bail granted to him was not justified."
9. The other question was before this Court that accused/petitioner was falsely implicated in the case of Zina has no substance because the girl aged 11 years, how will implicate the accused/ petitioner in such a abusive offence where there is a chance of destroying her reputation in the society and her family too, hence petitioner is not entitled to bail. My this view finds support from case titled Noor Muhammad v. The State reported as 2013 PCr.LJ 1442, wherein, accused took a plea that he is innocent and has been implicated in such a heinous offence. Court has not concurred with the stand of the accused and bail application of accused was dismissed. Relevant observation is as under:- " Coming to other ground that applicant is innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in the case, suffice to observe that no motive is shown as to why the complainant would implicate him in such a heinous case where her own chastity was put at peril and was jeopardized. The ground of innocence raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was a longer short, which otherwise was not available to him and is therefore, cannot be appreciated by this Court."
10. It is a case of commission of rape with a minor girl, in this respect the medical report shows that the "hymen of victim" ruptured which is sufficient to assess that she was subjected to rape. Furthermore, two vaginal swabs PVS, HVS and Anal Swab were sent to FSC for analysis and reports in this regard are still awaited and mere non- availability of such report does not entitle the accused/ petitioner for concession of bail. Learned counsel forcefully argued that non-availability of reports of FSC makes the case of accused/petitioner of further inquiry but I am of the view that the reports may be relevant but is not the sole criteria for grant of bail.
11. So far as the argument of learned counse l for the petitioner/accused that no marks of violence were found on the body of victim Insha Bibi is concerned. I feel that it would be appropriate in this context, to reproduce the opinion expressed by Modi in medical Jurisprudence and toxicology (twenty first edition) at page 369, as under:-- "Thus to constitute the offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be complete peneteration of Penis within the Laiba Majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without commission of semon and even attempt to penetration is quite. Sufficient for the purpose of law. It is therefore, quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without any injury to genitals or leaving any seminal stains"
12. Almost same view expressed by the Parikh in Text Book of Medical jurisprudence and Texicology , "Sexual Intercourse, in law, this terms is held to mean the slightest degree of pene tration of the vulva by the penis with or without commission of semon. It is therefore, quite possible to committee legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains."
13. In light of above referred opinion, medical evidence available on the record, in this case, is sufficient to believe that prima facie petitioner is connected with the alleged offence. Even otherwise, the offence is of moral turpitude which can destroy the entire life and psychology of a minor girl by putting her and her family to public shame, so the grant of bail in such like case is not proper .
14. After detail examination of record, and other materials available at file, I am of the opinion that even at bail stage findings and prima facie evaluation of collected material by the Courts below should be respected unless it is shown that Courts below have overlooked misapprehended and misapplied any fact or any substance I find that discretion exercised by learned Courts below by declining bail to petitioner does not suffer any illegal infirmity or illegality . No case of interference is made out with well reasoned discretionary order of trial Court and any observation at this stage on merits may prejudice the case at final disposal.
15. In view of above, finding no force in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.