The conviction for rape based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony is unsustainable without corroborative evidence, especially when inconsistencies and delays in reporting raise doubts.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - This appeal under Section 374 CrPC has been filed challenging the order dated 25-4-1990 in Sessions Case No.53/1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo six month rigorous imprisonment.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 7-5-1988 FIR was lodged at PS Gangapur City by prosecutrix alleging therein that on 6-5-1988 about 2.00 PM when she went to take water from the well of Bashir, the accused was taking bath, as soon as the prosecutrix took rope and balti for fetching water, the accused caught her hold from back and pushed her in the Guni of the well and started committing offence. When the prosecutrix tried to raise hue and cry the accused put lugri in her mouth and committed offence. After taking water from the well, the prosecutrix went to her house and then went to mother of accused and narrated the incident, thereupon mother of accused asked to take action against the accused. In the night the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband and mother-in-law. It was alleged that when they were going to lodge the report the accused met wandering armed with lathi, therefore, did not lodge the report at that time.

On the basis of report, FIR No.137/1988 came to be registered for offence under Section 376 IPC and investigation commenced. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charge was framed. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. In his statements under section 313 CrPC the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that witnesses are family members of the prosecutrix and there is dispute regarding the land. He stated that the land in which complainant party is residing belongs to accused and they are trying get vacate the land therefore the false case has been lodged. He further stated since there is partition dispute with his uncle (Tau) therefore the cousin Hamid s/o Tau, got registered this false case from Imamuddin. He further state he has also contested election for the post of Panch against his uncle (Tau) Subrati, therefore, the accused has been falsely implicated in the case.

The trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record, vide impugned judgment dated 25-4-1990 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.

3. The appellant preferred the instant appeal. Vide order dated 18-5-1990 suspended the sentence of the appellant.

4. Counsel for the appellant has argued that there is unexplained delay of more than one day in lodging the FIR, which is fatal to prosecution case, for the reason that the prosecutrix is a major and married lady who remained in company of her husband after the incident and before lodging the FIR as also before her medical checkup, which was conducted after two days of the incident. He argued that there are serious contradictions and discrepancies in statements of the prosecutrix, moreover the same are not corroborated with statements of her mother-in-law and husband. He argued that the incident of rape has been alleged to be occurred in an open place at the well, which is thickly populated and covered by 100/150 houses of villagers. There is no evidence on record to show that prosecutrix suffered any injury, even of minor nature, on her body or private parts. According to Dr. Radhey Sjhyamj Parashar (Pw.1) no external injury on the body of private parts of prosecutrix was found. Counsel for appellant has argued that from the evidence of the Investigating Officer the entire story of prosecutrix to commit rape by the appellant at the well becomes belied, as at the place of incident the Investigating Officer observed to lay pieces of lime stone and not BHUDA MITTI (sand). The site-report also fortify this fact. Counsel submitted that there is evidence on record that prosecutrix's family had animosity with the