IMPORTANT POINTS
In case of rape, delay in lodging FIR is natural.
When the prosecutrix denies consent it is for the accused to explain and rebut the same.
Lenient view should not be taken in offence u/s 376 IPC.

Judgment

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This criminal appeal is filed by the accused against the final order/judgment dated 15.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.2109-SB of 2009 which arises out of judgment/order dated 18.08.2009/20.08.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in Misc. Sessions Case No. 31 of 2007.

2. By impugned judgment/order, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant awarded by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months.

3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeal, few relevant facts need mention infra,

4. The prosecutrix (name withheld by us) was a young girl aged around 16 years 3 months at the relevant time. She had no educational background. She was the resident of Vidya Nand Colony, Panipat and was living with her parents and two younger sisters and three brothers. Her father, Abid was a labourer in one factory and her mother was running a small grocery shop in their house. The appellant accused, a young boy in his twenties was also residing with his family as their neighbour. He was also running his own grocery shop in his house.

5. On 02.04.2007, Sub Inspector (SI)-Prithvi Raj of Police Station Chandni Bagh received information about the sexual assault on the prosecutrix, who was taken to the General Hospital, Panipat. After receipt of the information, SI rushed to the General Hospital, Panipat to find out the details. He was told that the prosecutrix was not admitted to the hospital but was got examined by the doctors. He then collected parcel of slides, swab of the prosecutrix, samples of tests done on the prosecutrix and a copy of the MLR and then went to the prosecutrix's residence and met her mother, Ruksana on 04.04.2007.

6. Ruksana-the mother of prosecutrix then gave her statement saying that she has three daughters -the eldest being the prosecutrix aged around 14 years. Her husband was working as labourer and she was running a small grocery shop. She said that the appellant (accused), their neighbour, entered in their house a few days back in night and when she saw him, he slipped away. She had complained about this behavior of appellant to his parents but his parents did not pay any heed to her complaint. She then said that after some days, in their absence, Sajida-wife of Salim, who was living as their tenant in the same house, came to their house and enticed the prosecutrix on the pretext that she should talk with the appellant-accused regarding her love otherwise he would end his life by consuming poison. Ruksana further narrated that a fortnight back, on hearing the noise, she woke up and saw that her daughter was coming down from the staircase. On being asked, the prosecutrix did not give any response and avoided to give answer. However, later on, she told Ruksana (her mother) that the appellant had raped her in the night forcefully without her consent and threatened her not to disclose this incident to her parents or to anyone else she will have to face the dire consequences.

7. This disclosure made by Ruksana led to registration of FIR No. 144 dated 04.04.2007 in the Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat against the appellant-accused and Sajida, who as mentioned above, was living as tenant of the prosecutrix's father in the next room. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) was recorded. Her ossification test was also got done. The statements of other witnesses were recorded. The appellant and Sajida were arrested. The appellant was medically examined. After completing the investigation and collecting the necessary evidence, a charge-she