1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---The appellant was awarded ten years' R.I., with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., upon being tried and convicted under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance.
2. 1979. Such punishment imposed by the Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, on 2-10-1997 was upheld by the FSC on 9-12-1997.
3. ' Prosecutrix Samia Bibi (P.W.9) had alleged that at 8-00 a.m., on 13-8-1996 while she was sweeping outside the door of her house the appellant called her into his own house by giving out that his mother was calling her in the Baithak of the appellant's house. When Samia Bibi, aged 11-12 years, entered the Baithak the appellant allegedly bolted the door, brought out a pistol and threatened to kill her if she made any noise. The appellant also raised the volume of his tape recorder. In such a situation the appellant committed rape on the prosecutrix but because due to pain Samia Bibi still cried P.W. Muhammad Yousuf and Abdul Rasheed were constrained to knock at the door at which stage the appellant left the complainant and slipped into the interior of the house. There were efforts to bring about reconciliation between the parties which failed because the complainant's ailing father did not agree to condone the offence. As a result there was a delay of some four days in lodging of the FIR. Lady Dr. Falak Riffat (P.W. 5) who examined the victim was of the opinion that she was 11/12 years of age, was not habituated to sexual intercourse and her hymen was torn. The swa bs sent for chemical examination were found to be stained with semen. The lady doctor's final opinion was that the victim had been subjected to sexual intercourse. About the virility of the appellant Dr. Muhammad Nawaz Khan (P.W. 6) who examined the former rendered a positive opinion.
4. ' Leave was granted in this Court because the lady doctor had deposed the hymen to have healed which, in her opinion, usually took a period of one week.
5. ' Hearing this appeal we are of the view that the victim was a young village girl with a plausible likelihood of a comparatively early recovery. Even otherwise, if the girl was completely healed, for healing can have more stages than one, the result may only tantamount to some further delay in the F.I.R.
6. As to the apparent delay in lodging of the F.I.R., we cannot be unmindful of the prevailing taboos in our society. Even in modern day advanced societies, for and on account of the prevalent predilections, many a cases of rape go unreported. 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 the requirements to approbate a victim's difficult decision to purge the society of perpetrators of such heinous offences.
7. Nothing also turns on the appellant's plea that no marks of violence were found on the person of the prosecutrix. The circumstances of the appellant being of about 19/20 years of age and being armed with a deadly weapon are in themselves a sufficient explanation where the victim herself was of tender years.
8. ' To crown everything, the story of the appellant that there was a family dispute of the appellant's family declining to give the hand of one of its daughters in marriage to complainant's brother is too far-fetched to inspire confidence. Besides being uncorroborated, it is absolutely improbable that the girl's family would play with her honour solely to settle such a score as above-mentioned.
9. ' We have, accordingly, found no merit in this appeal and are constrained to dismiss it.