The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliability and corroboration in cases of rape, as emphasized by legal provisions and precedents.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 30.03.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.51/2013 arising out of FIR No. 34/09 PS Begumpur by which the appellant – Hari Chand was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. By an order dated 02.04.2013, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 10,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 13.11.2009 at about 01.30 p.m. at House No.204, First Floor, Pocket-18, Sector-24 Rohini, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix ‘X’ (Changed name). On 13.11.2009 at around 15.19.37 a PCR call was made about the commission of crime. DD No.18A (Ex.PW-14/A) came to be recorded at PS Begumpur at 03.25 p.m. The investigation was assigned to ASI Ved Prakash who along with Const.Babu Lal went to the spot. After recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-1/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. The victim was medically examined. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellant was arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. 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. Admitted position is that the prosecutrix along with her family members lived in the rented accommodation owned by the appellant for the last about 7/8 months. On the day of incident, the appellant had allegedly gone to collect rent and taking advantage of the X’s loneliness, he committed rape upon her.

4. Appellant’s conviction is primarily based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix ‘X’. 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.

5. In the instant case, material infirmities or inconsistencies have emerged in the statements of the prosecution witnesses making it unsafe to base conviction on the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was aged around 30 years and was mother of two grown-up children aged around 16 and 14 years. In her complaint (Ex.PW-1/A) given to the police at the first instance, she disclosed that her landlord used to visit them often to demand rent. About a week before the incident in question, he had come to collect rent. When she was alone that time, the appellant had committed rape upon her. She further disclosed that the incident of rape at the time was not disclosed due to fear of shame. Again on 13.11.2009, the appellant came to demand rent at around 01.30 p.m. Being not feeling well, she was lying in the room. The accused committed rape upon her against her wishes and threatened her not to disclose the incident. He left after the crime. When she became normal, a call at 100 was made.

6. In her Court statement as PW-1, the prosecutrix did not whisper a word about the commission of rape upon her by the accused a week before the incident in question. It is highly unbelievable and unacceptable that the prosecutrix would maintain complete silence and shall not report the incident of rape allegedly taken place about a week before the incident. She did not divulge the specific date and time when the said sexual assault had taken place. ‘X’ did not furnish any plausible explanation for not initiating any proceedings whatsoever against the appellant. Had such an incident been happened a week before against the wishes of the prosecutrix, there was no occasion for her to allow the appellant to enter the house in th