The importance of reliable evidence, corroborative evidence, and medical findings in cases of rape, and the necessity of exhibiting the F.I.R. and examining the Investigating Officer to substantiate the place and manner of occurrence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 20.09.2003 & 23.09.2003 respectively, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West in Sessions Trial No. 101 of 2001, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years under section 376 IPC.

3. The prosecution case as according to the written report of the informant is that on 09.11.2000 at about 3 P.M while prosecutrix was returning from cattle grazing, the appellant who was also cutting paddy crop nearby caught hold of her and dragged her forcibly into nearby bush and raped her. Though she raised alarm but no one came to rescue her. Thereafter, she came to her house and informed her husband and family members.

xxxx

5. Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned Amicus assails the impugned judgment on following grounds;

(i) Neither F.I.R. has been exhibited nor the I.O. has been examined.

(ii) The seized petticoat has not been exhibited.

(iii) The statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable and contrary to the medical report for following reason:-

(a) The place of occurrence is nearby village which is a cultivable area and the time of occurrence is 3 P.M. in the afternoon, so the statement of the victim that no one came to rescue her despite of having raised hula is not believable.

(b) No injury is present on the back or private part of prosecutrix despite being dragged into bushes and raped twice, which is not possible looking to the alleged place & manner of occurrence.

(c) She has stated that she was pregnant of 2-3 months which is contrary to the medical report which says that she was 7 months pregnant.

(d) It is impossible to drag and rape 7-month pregnant women without causing any injury or mark when she was raped on the ground in a hilly area.

Relying upon the aforesaid submissions, learned Amicus contended that the victim herself appears to be non-trustworthy.

6. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that no error has been committed by the learned trial court and the deposition of prosecution witnesses fully supports the prosecution case, as such no interference is required. However, he fairly admits that as per the available record there is no criminal antecedent of the appellant.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgment and the lower court records it emerges that on 09.11.2000 at about 3 p.m, while the prosecutrix was returning from cattle grazing, the appellant who was cutting paddy crop nearby caught hold of her and dragged her forcibly into nearby bush and raped her twice. Though, she raised alarm but no one came to her rescue. On returning home she informed her husband and family members, thereafter on the next day F.I.R. was lodged and the charges were framed on 18.10.2001 under section 376 IPC.

The victim states that she came to police station next day and her statement was recorded. She also handed over the petticoat she was wearing to the Daroga and thereafter she was taken for medical examination in hospital.

The victim in para 3 of her deposition has admitted that she was pregnant of 2-3 months at the time of occurrence. In para 4 she has admitted that the area was hilly. She in para 7 has stated that at the time of occurrence the appellant had no weapon. She did not receive any injury when she was dragged. She was raped at a place which had soil. In para 8 she admits that she knew the appellant and she denied the suggestion that she falsely implicated the appellant due to enmity.

P.W.-6 is the doctor, who examined victim on 11.11.2000 has stated that there was no injury on the private parts and/or any parts of body, no spermatozoa either dead or alive found. She was found to be pregnant of 28 weeks. She opined that sexual intercourse took place and she was 7 months pregnant. She in cross-examination has stated that no foreign material wa