The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for reliability in the testimony of the prosecutrix, the significance of corroborative evidence, and the importance of medical evidence and witness examination in cases of sexual assault.

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.

1. The appellant Brijesh has assailed the judgment dated 03.09.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Outer) in FIR No.1341/07, P.S. Sultan Puri whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’for short) and the order on sentence dated 03.09.2013 whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 IPC along with a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for a period of two years and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo S.I. for a period of one month under Section 506 IPC. Out of the said amount of Rs.1 lakh, a sum of Rs.75,000/- was ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix towards the compensation, after the expiry of period of appeal, revision etc.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 22nd August, 2007, complainant/prosecutrix ‘P’(assumed name) in the presence of her husband got a complaint registered and upon the said statement, a rukka was prepared and FIR No.1341/2007 under Sections 341/354 IPC was consequently registered. As per the statement, the prosecutrix stated that she had been living at the present address along with her three children and husband. The landlord Brijesh used to come to the said premises on one pretext or another and kept a bad eye on her and she had asked him not to come to her room behind her husband’s back. On 22nd August, 2007, said landlord came to her room at about 11.15 a.m. on the pretext of checking the electric metre. He caught hold of her and blocked her way and started rubbing her breasts on which she raised an alarm as a result of which he ran away. Thereafter she told about the incident to her husband and the information to the police was given. On that day, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination, however, she refused to undergo internal medical examination which she later on explained was due to the threat given to her husband that if she did go for medical examination, it would lead to dire consequences for her son. On that day, an FIR under Sections 341/354 IPC was registered through Constable Mahesh. The investigation was entrusted to ASI Rakesh (Retired) (PW-12) who prepared the site plan, recorded the statement of witnesses and on pointing out of the prosecutrix, the accused/appellant was arrested in this case and was later on released on bail. On 23rd August, 2007, the prosecutrix along with her husband again went to Police Post Budh Vihar and informed that the appellant had committed rape upon her and also due to threat extended to her, she had not reported regarding the same earlier but since the appellant was again threatening her, she had come to report of the incident now. On that day, the prosecutrix alleged that the appellant had committed rape on her after having come to her house. The appellant after entering the tenanted premises, close the door, caught hold of her from behind, shut her mouth and thereafter raped her against her will. While leaving, the appellant threatened the prosecutrix that he would kill her, her husband and the children. Initially under the influence of threat, the prosecutrix did not report about the incident of rape, however, on an encouragement by her husband, she got her second statement recorded wherein charges under Sections 376, 506 IPC were added to the initial FIR. On this day, the prosecutrix was again got medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The exhibits were sent to FSL and after completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed. The trial was conducted, statement of witnesses were recorded. Leading finally to the passing of the impugned judgment and order on sentence.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecutrix did not make any allegation of rape in the fi