The court established that a conviction for rape requires credible testimony from the prosecutrix, supported by corroborative evidence, especially when inconsistencies and delays in reporting exist.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

For convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: -

Factual Matrix:-

1. The appellant herein calls into question the impugned judgment dated 27.02.1992 passed by the Special Judge, Sati Nivaran and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.1/1991 by which the accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months’ additional simple imprisonment.

2. Shorn of details, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.

Case of Prosecution:-

3. PW-1 ‘R’ lodged First Information Report (FIR) (Ex.P-1) with Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur City, Jaipur alleging therein that her second marriage was solemnized with Ghulam Mohammed under the Special Marriage Act. From the first wedlock with Late Rampal Meena, two children were born. The age of the son ‘K’ is 18 years and of daughter ‘S’ is 13 years. Two years back, she went to Godha Bhawan and stayed there for some days. Taking benefit of her absence, her husband Ghulam Mohammed committed rape upon her daughter. A month back, her daughter told her that Ghulam Mohammed committed rape thrice upon her and even the same act was done at the house of Sayeed etc.

4. Upon this report, FIR was registered for the offence under Section 376 IPC against the appellant and after investigation, the appellant was charge – sheeted under Section 376 IPC and charge was framed for the same offence. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses. Thereafter, the appellant in his explanation under Section 313 CrPC claimed himself as innocent but no evidence was produced in defence. After completion of trial, the trial Court found him guilty and convicted and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:-

5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix wherein the allegations have been levelled against the appellant that on three different occasions, rape was committed by him with her daughter. Counsel submits that as per the FIR, the first incident occurred two years back from date of FIR and for lodging the delayed FIR, no explanation has been given. Counsel submits that when the statements of the mother ‘R’ (PW-1) of the prosecutrix was recorded during the course of trial, she has not supported the version of prosecution and she has been declared as hostile. Counsel submits there are a lot of contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix ‘S’ (PW-2) with regard to the offence. Counsel submits that one incident of rape has been allegedly committed in the presence of the mother of the prosecutrix. Counsel submits that such story of prosecution and such allegations of the prosecutrix is not reliable. Counsel submits that allegations of rape are not corroborated by the medical evidence when the prosecutrix was medically examined and her Medico Legal Report (MLR) (Ex.P-7) was prepared. Counsel submits that no injury was found on the private and external part of the prosecutrix and the Doctor was not sure about the rape. Hence, vaginal swab was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis but the prosecution has failed to exhibit the said report of FSL on record to connect the appellant with the alleged incident. Counsel submits that when the statement of the Investigating Officer were recorded,