RAGHUNATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The charge against the appellant is that on 16-3-1986, in the afternoon around 5 p m., he commitied rape on Urmila Devi wife of Shri Om Parkash in a room in the basement of the building called IEMS building at Rafi Marg, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P S. Parliament Street, New Delhi. He was prosecuted and tried tor an offence under Section 3761PC. The trial court found him guilty for the said offence and convicted him under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 and in default to further undergo SI for three months.

(2.) . Shri Bhatia, learned counsel for Delhi Administration, argued that no lady would involve herself in such a case of rape without any basis or foundation. According to him, the appellant has not given any justification as to why he was given beating by the husband and other relations of the prosecutrix On the point of lodging FIR after four days, Mr Bhatia submilted that as far as possible the relatives of the prosecutrix and the prosetcutrix would not like to lodge a report with the police for such an offence to avoid humiliation and therefore, the delay in lodging FIR cannot be said to be fatal in such cases. Regarding the contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix, Mr Bhatia stated that she is an illiterate lady and such type ofcontradictions arc bound to be there in the statement of an illiterate lady. Mr. Bhatia defended the judgment given by the trial court in. this case.

(3.) . I have gone through the entire case record. There are certain facts which are unassailable. The incident of rape is alleged to have taken place on 16-3-1986at about 5 p.m but the FIR was lodged on 20-3-1986, i e. after four days of the incident. No satisfactory explanation has been given for this inordinate delay. Though the appellant was known to the prosecutrix and her husband and other relatives but no steps were taken to trace him or to lodge the report with the police by namiag him as the rapist On her medical examination by the doctor, no marks of violence on her body were detected. Even on her internal examination, no injury was detected on her hymen or vagina. From these facts it is clear that the prosecutrix was not subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. The statement of the prosecutrix Mrs. Urmilla suffers from material defects and it is full of contradictions. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of such a witness. According to her statement in the court, the appellant had entered into her room at 12 O'clock at night and the only person to reach there was Salig Ram. She stated that her husband and her brother-in-law (Devar) bad gone to fetch ration from Paharganj. She was declared hostile and the prosecutor was allowed to cross-examiner her but in the cross-examination also she stuck to her statement that the appellant had entered her room at 12 at in the night and not at 5 p.m. as mentioned in the FIR. In the later part of her statement she stated that both her husband Om Parkash and her Devar bad gone to Paharganj and left her alone in the room. The appellant had sexual intercourse from 8 p m. to 12 p.m. and that she was in her room and the alarm attracted Salig Ram who came to the spot. She stated that Salig Ram removed the appellant from her body when be was doing sexual intercourse with her. She stated that the appellant remained on her body for two hours when Salig Ram separated him.