DILLOO Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was convicted under section 354 IPC and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/ - by the trial Magistrate. Sessions Judge Chhatarpur in Cr. A. No. 24/92 confirmed this finding and sentence which is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) SHORT facts are that Ramkuwarbai (P.W. 1) was proceeding from her village to her well with a cane filled with milk when the applicant caught of her hand and tried to drag her. He uttered words suggesting that he wanted to commit sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix raised alarm which attracted Damru (P.W. 5) and Halka (P.W. 8). On their arrival the petitioner ran away. The prosecutrix informed her parents of this incident the same day. Her father and uncle went to the police station but no action was taken. After about twenty days the prosecutrix left for her husband's place. After about six months she made a written complaint to the S.P. (Ex. P. 4) which ultimately resulted in applicant's prosecution and conviction as aforesaid.

(3.) IT is settled beyond controversy that unexplained undue delay in lodging a first information report of a cognizable offence renders the prosecution case doubtful. In the present case also the delay of six months has not been satisfactorily explained. And then the evidence shows that the promptly lodged first information report was deliberately suppressed. From such suppression adverse inference against the prosecution has to be drawn that if that report was produced it would not have supported the prosecution version. Therefore, suppression of the prompt report and unexplained delay of six months in lodging the written report which became the first information report in the case were sufficient by themselves to render the prosecution story doubtful.