The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony in cases of sexual offences, especially when there are variations, infirmities, and inconsistencies in her statements, and the lack of medical evidence to support her claims.

1. The appellant has filed this criminal appeal under Section 374 CrPC assailing the judgment and order on sentence dated 6th December, 2016 and 21st December, 2016 respectively whereby he has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven year with fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one-and-a-half year.

2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 16th September, 2013 at about 6.50 am, DD No.12-A was recorded at PS South Rohini about a wireless message being received that the Contractor (thekedar) had done ‘galat kaam’ during night time with the wife of the informant. The DD was assigned to SI Ravi for necessary action. SI Ravi reached the spot and inquired about the incident. Thereafter he apprised the SHO who sent W/SI Khushboo alongwith W/Ct.Mukesh to the spot. W/SI Khushboo recorded the statement of prosecutrix/complainant ‘G’ (name withheld to conceal her identity) and sent the rukka for registration of FIR. Crime team was also called at the spot and prosecutrix was sent to Baba Saheb Ambedkar hospital for medical examination.

3. On the basis of the statement Ex.PW11/A made by the prosecutrix ‘G’, case FIR No.269/2013 under Section 376 IPC was registered at PS South Rohini. Appellant/ convict was arrested on the same day and also got medically examined at the same hospital. Statement under Section 164 CrPC Ex.PW11/B was also recorded by the learned Magistrate on the same day i.e. on 16th September, 2013 when the complainant was produced for getting her statement under Section 164 CrPC.

4. The crime team inspected the spot and the bedding on which the rape was committed was also seized. After completion of investigation, the appellant was sent for facing trial for committing the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

5. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses in all to prove its case. During examination under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant admitted having physical relations with the complainant but pleaded that it was with consent. He also stated about having dispute with the husband of the prosecutrix over payment of wages to thirty labours engaged by her husband who wanted their payment not through the husband of the prosecutrix but directly from him. He has also examined one witness namely Sh.Ballabh Prasad Yadav (DW-1) who was residing close to the jhuggi, of the prosecutrix to prove the distance of the jhuggi of the prosecutrix from the toilet and also from the place of occurrence through photographs Ex.PW11/D1 to Ex.PW11/D11 so as to rule out the possibility of she being forcibly taken by him from near the toilet.

6. On the basis of evidence adduced and material placed on record by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment and order on sentence, convicted and sentenced the appellant for committing the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC for the following reasons:-

(i) The prosecutrix and her husband both have denied that she was having any affair with the appellant. No evidence was led in defence to prove the affair between the two.

(ii) The contradiction in the testimony of the prosecutrix and her husband as to whether the husband reached the place of occurrence on hearing her cries or she informed him about the incident after returning to her jhuggi, does not change the core of the offence. In both the cases unwillingness of the prosecutrix is evident as she informed her husband immediately after the incident.

(iii) Failure of the prosecutrix to raise alarm immediately on coming out cannot go against her in view of the social and cultural reality of the stigma attached to the victim of rape.

(iv) Delay in reporting the matter was also not considered having any adverse effect on the trustworthiness of the prosecutrix and her husband as stigma attached to the victim and the range of emotions including anger, sh