The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in reporting and absence of medical corroboration do not necessarily undermine the victim's testimony in cases of rape if it is found to be consistent and reliable.

JUDGMENT

Birendra Kumar, J. - The sole appellant Matiur Rahman has questioned the correctness of his conviction by judgment dated 27.02.2020 and order of sentence dated 03.03.2020 passed by learned Additional District Judge cum Special Court, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 548 of 2004 arising out of Ajam Nagar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2004.

2. By the judgment under challenge, the appellant was found guilty for the offences under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 450 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/- for offence under Section 376 IPC. The amount of fine would go to the victim and the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment of one year has been awarded.

3. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report, dated 26.02.2004 of PW-6 Md. Qurban Ansari, is that the informant was away, from his home in village-Brahmain, P.S.- Ajam Nagar, District-Katihar, in connection with his livelihood. On 23.02.2004 at about eleven in the night, his daughter aged about 15 years was in the house. The appellant, all of a sudden, entered into the house and ravished her at the point of pistol and dagger. The victim became unconscious. When the people of nearby came there, the victim narrated the incident. The written report is as exhibit-1 on the record.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses. PW-1 Lomhar Khatoon and PW-3 Sabera Khatoon, about whom the victim stated in her deposition that they are her neighbours and they were also sleeping along with her in the night of occurrence and they were expelled from the house by the appellant before committing the rape, have turned hostile. Likewise PW-2 Rukhsana Khatoon who had stated before the police that she heard about the occurrence, also turned hostile during trial. PW-4 Kaibul Nisha and PW-6 Md. Qurban Ansari are parents of the victim girl and they have supported what the victim had narrated to them.

5. Pw-5 the victim girl who was examined on 22.08.2008 deposed that the occurrence took place about four years ago. It was night at eleven. The victim was sleeping in her house. The two girls of the neighbour hood Lomhar Khatoon and Sabera Khatoon were also sleeping along with her. The parents had gone to brick kiln where they were labour. At the time of occurrence, the appellant came along with pistol and dagger in his hand and threatened to kill her. The appellant asked both the girls to go away and thereafter forcefully ravished to the victim girl. Next day, the parents came to whom she narrated the incident. The parents took her to the local Mukhiya and thereafter to the police station where the case was lodged.

6. In the cross-examination, the victim stated that the parents had reached home at about 10:00 am following the night of occurrence. When the parents had come, she was unconscious and she could gain consciousness at 2 PM only. She further stated that she had not sustained any injury on any part of her body during the occurrence. The witness denied her knowledge about any enmity between the local Mukhiya and the appellant. In the cross-examination, PW-4 also stated that she reached at home on the following day after hearing about the occurrence and when she reached, the victim was unconscious and she could gain consciousness at 2 PM. Thereafter, she went to Md. Naimul, the local Mukhiya. PW-6 also deposed that he reached home at about 10 am in the next morning and the victim narrated about the incident to her mother from whom this witness got the knowledge. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these prosecution witnesses, especially the victim girl and her parents to disbelieve their testimony.

7. Mr. Sagir Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is delay of three days in reporti