GUNADHAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Cr. Appeal is directed against the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 44/1994 on 9.5.1995 against the appellant for the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. and the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case as it stands narrated in the statement (Ext. 2) of the prosecutrix Bijli Devi (P.W.3) was that while she had been to the river side in the evening of 10.10.1993 watching her catties. Catties grazing, at about 6 p.m., the appellant co -villager all of a sudden caught hold her from behind and pushed with his knees on her back by holding her shoulders, as a result of which she fell down on the ground and raised objection. She further narrated that the appellant climbed on her body, gagged her mouth with the help of his towel and after removing her Sari and Petticoat committed rape on her When she resisted, it is alleged that, he slapped her. After ejaculation he threatened not to convey the incident to else otherwise she would be killed. She further narrated that after escape of the appellant she raised alarm but there was none in the Bahiyar (field) to listen her. She returned back to her matrimonial home and narrated the occurrence to her mother -in -law, co -sister, Nanad and to her husband who came later on in the evening, so she could not go to the police station on the same evening. She further narrated that when her husband approached the appellant to enquire about, he was abused by him. She sustained pain in different organs of her body on account of scuffle and also sustained simple injury with the broken bangle. The police on her statement registered Patthargama PS. Case No. 112 of 1993 and after investigation submitted charge -sheet for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. The charge against the appellant accordingly was framed under Section 376 I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) THE learned Counsel relied on the decision. The Apex Court in Rajeevan v. State of Kerala followed the principle as laid down by the Supreme Court in Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1972 CriLJ 1296 wherein it was held, Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained.