The judgment establishes the importance of scrutinizing the evidence presented by the prosecution, considering the absence of injuries and the delay in lodging the F.I.R., and applying the presumption under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act in cases of rape.

JUDGMENT

Sarang V. Kotwal, J. - The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and order dated 15/10/2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge & D.J.-1, Islampur, in Sessions Case No.20 of 2019. The Appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.376(2)(f) of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for two months. He was also convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.506 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one month. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The Appellant was granted set off U/s.428 of the Cr.p.c. The Appellant was acquitted from the charges of commission of offence punishable U/s.342 of the I.P.C.

2. Heard Shri. Shailesh Chavan, learned appointed Advocate for the Appellant and Shri. Agarkar, learned APP for the State/Respondent.

3. The prosecution case is that the Appellant was the maternal cousin of the prosecutrix's husband. The incident took place on 01/11/2018 in the afternoon. The prosecutrix was staying with her mother in law, her husband and two sons. On the date of incident her husband was not present. He had gone to a different city to attend his job. He was a cleaner on the truck, therefore, he used to go for his job at least 8 to 10 days in a month. On the date of incident, her mother in law had gone out. The Appellant came to the prosecutrix's house. He gave some money to her son to buy something. Her sons went out. At that time, the prosecutrix was alone in the house. The Appellant took advantage of the situation and committed rape on her.

4. In the meantime, the prosecutrix's son returned home. The Appellant then went away; but before going he threatened her. When her mother in law returned, the prosecutrix told her about the incident. But she advised the prosecutrix to keep quiet and not to disclose this incident to any one else, to avoid loss of reputation. In that night, the prosecutrix was having pain in her abdomen. On the next day, she went to a Doctor, but she did not get herself admitted in the hospital. Then she went to her parent's house on the advise of her brother. Her sister and brother gave her support and courage and after that, she approached the police station and gave her complaint. The F.I.R. was lodged vide C.R.No.63 of 2018 at Kokrud police station. It was lodged in the midnight of 03/11/2018 and 04/11/2018. The Appellant was arrested on 04/11/2018. The Appellant and the victim were sent for medical examination. Their clothes were seized. The spot panchanama was conducted. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The articles were sent for chemical analysis. At the completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses including the prosecutrix, her son, the panchas, the Medical Officers and the Investigating Officer. The defence of the Appellant was of total denial. According to him, on the day of incident he was not present in the village of the prosecutrix. In his written statement, he mentioned that his family was having dispute with the prosecutrix's husband's family in respect of an agricultural land, therefore, this false complaint was lodged on 04/11/2018. No such incident had taken place.

6. Learned Trial Judge considered the evidence and the defence taken by the Appellant. After considering the submissions, learned Judge recorded his finding of guilt against the Appellant.

7. PW-1 was the prosecutrix herself. She has deposed that, she used to stay with her husband, son, daughter and other family members. Her husband was working as a Cleaner. On 01/11/2018, her mother in law had gone to an agricultural field. Her husband was in Mumbai. She was not feeling well and, therefore, she was in her house. The Appellant came to her house at around 3.00p.m. She gave