(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)—
—-S. 376— Rape— Appreciation of evidence— Ocular account corroborated by medical evidence—
Prosecution case was that the accused committed sexual intercourse with a minor girl—Victim was
complainant of the case, had narrated the occurrence in the mode and manner it had happened—Record
showed that statement of minor-victim had been recorded after due satisfaction of the court—Victim had
herself disclosed the name of the accused-appellant to have subjected her to sexual intercourse—Victim
being minor child of the age of nine years could not malafidely charge the accused for such a heinous
offence—Statement of the victim showed that she was a truthful witness—Victim was medically
examined by Medical Officer, whose statement revealed that there had been vaginal and perennial tears
that had already been stitched and the hymen had been perforated and injured—Medical Officer had
been subjected to cross-examination at length by the defence but the fact had not been denied that infact
complainant/victim was subjected to sexual intercourse in a very harsh manner—Defence had
alleged that the Forensic Science Laboratory report in respect of presence of human semen in vagina
was negative—Mere negative report in respect of non-availability of human semen in the vagina could
not be considered ground for acquittal—Attending circumstances suggested that there were reasons to
believe the perforation of the hymen as by the time minor might have being unable to resist extreme
pain which had left the accused-appellant to have penetrated outside—Circumstances established that
offence of rape had been committed with the complainant-victim—Appeal against conviction was
dismissed in circumstances.
Muhammad Abdul Khaleque and others PLD 1960 SC 325; Hayat v. Jahangir and others PLD
2002 SC 590; Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048; Rawato and another v. The State 2000
PCr.LJ 333; Ibrar Hussain and others v. The State and another 2007 SCMR 605; Mulazim Hussain and 2
others v. The State 2007 YLR 723; Muhammad Shahid v. The State and others 2016 YLR 616 and
Pervaiz Maseeh v. The State 2016 YLR 2611 ref.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)—
—-S. 376—Rape—Appreciation of evidence—Delay in lodging FIR—Effect—Occurrence took place
at 7.30 a.m. on 16.5.2015 and the matter was reported to the police at 2.30 p.m. on 18.5.2015 while the
FIR was chalked out at 3.30 p.m. on the same day—Circumstances showed that FIR was lodged with a
delay of two days—Fact remained that due to fear she had not disclosed the incident even to her mother;
in such a situation, even if report had been lodged with delay, it would not be beneficial for the accused.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)—
—-S. 376— Rape— Appreciation of evidence—Solitary statement of victim—Evidentiary value—
Conviction could be awarded in rape cases, on the sole testimony of the victim provided that the
statement of victim was confidence inspiring.