The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the prosecutrix's testimony, corroboration from other witnesses, and the consideration of societal factors contributing to the delay in reporting the incident.

B.N.P.Singh, J.

1. The appellant suffered conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on being tried by Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1989 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years on that count.

2. The facts of the case are tell a tale. While Mina Kumari, the prosecutrix, was alone in her house in the month of Asharh of the year 1988, the appellant sneaked in her house and asked to accompany him to his house for work. Considering his version to be true, it was alleged that when she went to the house of the appellant, firstly he allured her for sexual intercourse. However, when she did not concur to the proposal of the appellant, she being virgin, the appellant wielding dagger coercing her, violated her person. It was alleged that she was vanished even in successive nights and after she expressed her apprehension of getting conceived, he assured her for miscarriage. Even when wife of the appellant came to her house, the appellant, it is alleged continued to commit sexual intercourse on her taking her, in the field and with these narrations of the prosecutrix which she rendered after four months of the incident, a police case was registered at Katihar police station and investigation commenced. During pendency of the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of the witnesses got the prosecutrix clinically examined by a doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the court and the appellant being committed to the Court of Sessions was put on trial. At trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and the trial Court placing implicit reliance on the testimony of them, rendered verdict of guilt, convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him in the manner stated above.

3. Now adverting to the evidences placed on the record on behalf of the State, one would find Mina Kumari PW 2, the prosecutrix narrating before the court about appellant taking her to his house in the night of incident on the pretext of some work and despite her reluctance to accompany him, he took her to his house and also ravished her. When she wanted to raise alarm, she was threatened of dire consequences. After her parents came to house she stated to have narrated her woes to them when a painchaity was convened at the instance of her father, as she had conceived and was carrying pregnancy for four months. Andu Sharma PW 1 stated to have been informed by his daughter about the appellant having committed sexual assault on her. A Panchaity was convened when it was resolved that the appellant would execute a deed of sale for land in favour of father of the prosecutrix. However, the resolution adopted by the panchaity was not accepted to the father of the appellant. The evidence of Karmi Devi PW 3 at trial was that she was informed by the prosecutrix about sexual assault committed by the appellant on her. Md. Muslim PW 5 was Investigating Officer of the case who stated to have got the prosecutrix examined by the doctor and taken various steps in the process of investigation. PW 6 Maheshwar Singh was a formal witness and there is nothing material in his evidence to merit consideration. Dr. Laxmi Sen PW 4 stated to have clinically examined the prosecutrix who estimated her to be of 16 to 17 years of age. Though no mark of injury was found on her person. Interna] examination disclosed hymen old torn, vaginal canal loose which suggested that she was used to sexual intercourse since long. The prosecutrix in estimation of the doctor was carrying pregnancy of 16 weeks. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State to bring home charges against the appellant.

4. The finding recorded by the trial Court was impeached by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on variety of reasonings and it is sought to be urged that since prosecutrix had not taken recourse to the public authority, before lapses of four m