(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 24-2-2004 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur in Sessions Trial No. 196/2003. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Sudhram has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:
(2.) Shri J.K. Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the FIR (Ex. D-1) was lodged at belated stage. In absence of proper explanation therefor, the prosecution story becomes doubtful. He further argued that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not cogent and reliable. The prosecutrix did not state about rape. Her evidence does not inspire confidence. The prosecutrix did not sustain any injury on her person. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Learned counsel placed reliance on Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, 2002 10 SCC 743, Dinesh Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 3 SCC 232 and Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, 2011 7 SCC 130.
(3.) On the contrary, Shri Sandeep Yadav, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent, opposed the above arguments and supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.