The judgment emphasizes the need for corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony and the caution required in scrutinizing the evidence, especially in cases involving serious hostility between the parties and the potential for false implication.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 09.09.2015 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.142/13 arising out of FIR No.538/06 registered at Police Station Nangloi by which the appellant-Sanjay was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 376/506 IPC. By an order dated14.09.2015, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years with fine Rs. 20,000/- under Section 376 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 21.11.2005 between 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. at H.No.3/138A, Veena Enclave, Nangloi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Nangloi, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix ‘X’ (assumed name), aged around 16 years and criminally intimidated her. The incident was reported to the police on 1.6.2006. After recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-2/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. ‘X’ was medically examined, she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to FSL for examination. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him in the court. To establish its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. He examined DW-1 (Geeta), DW-2 (Chander Kanta), DW-3 (WSI Savita), DW-4 (Dhanni Devi) and DW-5 (Satish Kumar) in defence. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file minutely. Admitted case is that the victim’s father had expired on 28.11.1996. The appellant, her father’s friend, used to visit them at the time of his treatment before death. It is also admitted that after the death of her father, PW-5 (Durga Devi), her mother and the appellant started living together as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ at Nangloi. The appellant was also a married person having four children. Initially, relationship between PW-5 (Durga Devi) and the appellant was cordial. However, after relations became strained subsequently, Durga Devi (PW-5) returned to her residence at Trilok Puri.

4. Appellant’s conviction is primarily based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix ‘X’ which has not been corroborated by any other independent source. Needless to say conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony. In case the court has reasons not to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration.

The incident whereby the prosecutrix ‘X’ was ravished by the appellant allegedly took place on 21.11.2005. The occurrence was not reported to the police and no FIR was lodged on that day or soon thereafter. It has come on record that the prosecutrix had narrated her ordeal to her mother on the same day after she returned from her office at about 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. The victim and her mother deposed that they had approached the police at Police Station Nangloi to lodge the complaint and had met one Police Officer Savita who had advised them not to initiate any action for the sake of welfare of her daughter. She thought it better to maintain silence and did not lodge the report. The explanation offered by the victim and her mother for inordinate delay in lodging the FIR inspires no confidence. PW11 (SI Urmil Sharma), the Investigating Officer in the cross-examination disclosed that she had enquired from Sub-Inspector Savita about the victim’s visit to the Police Station to lodge FIR. However, she denied if anything of that sort had happened. The appellant examined WSI