LALITA DEVI Vs. HEERA LAL KUCHWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of impugned judgment dtd. 04/02/2008 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Sarguja in Sessions Trial No.18/07 by which, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent No.1 / accused of the charges of commission of offence under Sec. 376 IPC. Present revision has been preferred by the prosecutrix herself.

(2.) On 12/12/2006, an FIR (Ex.P/3) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW4) that on 08/12/2006, at about 7 AM, she was subjected to rape by her brother-in-law (Jeth), the accused. According to the prosecutrix, when early in the morning, she had gone to cattle shed for cleaning, the respondent / accused came from behind and caught hold of her, threatened and then committed rape on her. The respondent / accused was tried for alleged commission of offence. Though the prosecutrix came out with an evidence that she was subjected to rape by the respondent / accused, learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent / accused by giving him benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment reveals that the learned Trial Court found the case of the prosecution doubtful mainly taking into consideration that though the alleged incident had taken place on 08/12/2006, FIR was lodged as late as on 12/12/2006. Learned Trial Court also noticed the conduct of the prosecutrix that though she was a married lady, she did not raise any hue and cry, even though, there were other members of the family. It was also noticed that no injuries were found on any part of the body of the prosecutrix to show any signs of resistance. Learned Trial Court also held that the prosecutrix could have atleast raised an alarm which was also not done. Learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent / accused taking into consideration the contents of FIR, attending circumstances, particularly taking into consideration that the respondent / accused and the prosecutrix were seen coming out from the cattle shed by her sister-in-law (Jethani) and even the daughter of the prosecutrix had seen the two in compromising situation. The prosecution came out with a case of rape, but the Trial Court acquitted, noticing probability that the prosecutrix and the respondent may have been engaged in a consensual sex.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the acquittal of the respondent from the charges of commission of offence of rape is guided only by some minor contradictions and omissions and that the prosecutrix did not sustain any bodily injury and there was some delay in lodging FIR. According to learned counsel for the applicant, delay in lodging FIR has been properly and sufficiently explained, both by the prosecutrix (PW4) and her husband Hemant Kushwaha (PW5) that on the date of alleged commission of offence, the husband of the prosecutrix was out of station and when he came in the night on 11/12/2006, he was informed regarding the incident and then, on the very next day, FIR was lodged. He would further submit that the prosecutrix has clearly stated that she informed regarding the incident to her mother-in-law and sister-in-law both, who supported her at this stage, which is manifest from their diary statements. Therefore, it cannot be said that delay in lodging FIR was not explained. According to him, it was a case where the prosecutrix was subjected to rape in her own house and in such circumstances, such incidents are not immediately reported as there is tendency to suppress the same as far as possible to save the male members of the family. He further submitted that the law does not require that in order to lay credence to the testimony of the prosecutrix, presence of injury is necessary. The prosecutrix has stated that she was overpowered by giving a threat which means that the prosecutrix had given up and could not offer any resistance nor could cry for any help.