Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence, and medical evidence is not always necessary to establish the commission of rape.

Kuldip Singh, J.

1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 16.3.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 17-ST/7 of 2007 convicting the appellant under Section, 376 read with Section 506-I IPC and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year under Section 376 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 506-I IPC. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently, the amount of fine, if realized, shall be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11.9.2006 PW-1 prosecutrix aged 17 years got an FIR No. 186/2006 registered at Police Station, Nahan. She has stated that on 20.8.2006 at about 12.30 p.m. she had taken her goats for grazing in the forest at a distance of about 1/2 K.M. from the village. She was sitting alone on a foot-path, at about 2 p.m. somebody caught hold of her from her back and she found accused had caught hold of her. She asked him the reason for holding her, he did not respond. He made her to lie on the ground. He sat over her and started pressing her breasts, she objected but despite that he forcibly removed her Salwar and raped her. She raised alarm but none came there for her help. The accused after raping her left the place and threatened her that in case she would disclose the incident to anybody; she will have to pay for it. On account of this fear she did not disclose the incident to her parents, but she was tense.

3. On 2.9.2006 due to tension she attempted to commit suicide by consuming some poison, she became unconscious and was removed to hospital at Dadahu then to Nahan and PGI, Chandigarh. On regaining her consciousness she disclosed the incident to her parents and brother Ramesh Chand. She was discharged from PGI, Chandigarh on 10.9.2006 and thereafter she reported the case at Police Station, Nahan.

4. The prosecutrix was got medically examined and the case was investigated by PW-9 ASI Jagdish Chand. The accused was arrested on 12.9.2006. On completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan committed the case vide order dated 19.5.2007. The accused was charged for offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 306/511 IPC; he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and placed on record documentary evidence. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution case and took the plea that the witnesses have deposed against him due to previous enmity. The learned Sessions Judge on conclusion of trial convicted and sentenced the accused as notice above. Hence, accused has come in appeal.

5. Heard and perused the record. Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity. The prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence properly. It is not a case where sole testimony of the prosecutrix is enough to convict the accused. There is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The medical evidence belies the case of the prosecution. The compartment examination of the prosecutrix was to commence in September 2006 and out of fear of examination prosecutrix consumed poison and not for the reason that she was allegedly raped by the accused. The prosecutrix was admittedly about 17 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. The learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the occurrence took place at an isolated place. The defence of accused that he has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity has no foundation. The delay in lodging the report has been explained b