The judgment emphasized that a delayed FIR is not illegal and does not necessarily affect the prosecution case. It highlighted that a promptly lodged FIR is ideal but not a guarantee for the genuineness of the version incorporated therein.

K.C. Sharma, J.-This criminal appeal by appellant Jawahari Lal arises out of the Judgment and order dated 18.09.1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Kota, by which the learned Judge has convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.

2. On 14.03.1982 at 5.00 PM, PW. 4 Mst. Lad Kanwar alongwith her brother Bala went to Police Station Budha-deet (Kota) and lodged oral report, thereby informing the police that at about 12.00 noon she had gone to her field to collect fodder. While she was busy in making a bundle of gram crop, all of a sudden, one Babu and appellant Juharia came there from the field of Chhitar Bhadaria, caught hold of her and made her to fall on the ground and thereafter appellant committed rape on her. She raised an alarm but there was none to hear her cries. According to her, Babu also committed rape on her. She alleged that she sustained abrasions on her breasts and her bangles had also broken. After committing rape, both the accused ran towards canal. Lastly, she alleged that one Panraj met her while she was returning her home. Having reached home, she disclosed the incident to her brother and thereafter she and her brother informed the police and lodged the oral report.

3. On the above oral report, the police registered a case for offence under Section 376, IPC vide FIR, Exhibit P-6 and proceeded with the investigation.

4. In the course of investigation, site plan, Exhibit P-8 was prepared, Ghaghari and blouse of the prosecutrix were seized vide Exhibit P-9 and broken pieces of bangles were also seized vide memo Exhibit P-12. The appellant was arrested on 30.05.1982 and his under-wear was seized on 30.05.1982. The cloths of accused and prosecutrix were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination on 15.03.1982.

5. Having completed investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate having found the offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

6. The learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation, framed charge against the appellant for offence under Sections 376, IPC. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The accused was then examined under Section 313, CrPC. In his explanation, the accused stated that he has been falsely involved in the instant case, inasmuch as it was Panraj who was busy in performing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. In his defence, the appellant examined DW. 1 Ramlal and DW. 2 Raghunath.

8. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge found the prosecution case, as alleged proved and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated herein above. Hence, the present appeal against conviction.

9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment , the evidence and material on record.

10. In assailing the conviction, the first contention raised by Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the FIR has been lodged with an inordinate delay for which the prosecution has not offered any explanation, much less satisfactory explanation. According to him the incident alleged to have taken place at 12.00 noon on 14.03.1982, whereas the matter was reported to the police at 5.00 PM and as such there was considerable unexplained delay of 5 hours, which is fatal to the prosecution case.

10.11. I have given my anxious consideration to the above submissions. Having scanned the evidence and material on record, it appears to me that there was no delay in informing the police about the incident. If at all there was any delay, the prosecution has well explained the same. The incident took place at 12.00