Solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is enough to sustain a conviction if it transpires confidence, and corroboration by an eyewitness and medical evidence can support the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2005 passed by Sri Indra Deo Misra, 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.407 of 2001 and Sessions Case No.31 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 341 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four (04) years with a fine of Rs.1000/-for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging FIR dated 25.05.1989 wherein the prosecution story has been disclosed by P.W.4-Parwati Besra (prosecutrix/informant) that she went to jungle (Susumbera Forest) along with Suryamani Besra for collecting leaves on 14.05.1989. Both were collecting leaves at some distance in the jungle. Finding alone the prosecutrix, the appellant had committed rape upon her. She immediately informed the incident to Suryamani Besra (P.W.5) and both had come to the village and thereafter the incident was narrated before her husband and father-in-law. Efforts had been taken to held panchayati for this matter but panchayati could not be held, and as such, there was delay in lodging the FIR.

4. After conclusion of the investigation, the police had found the incident true and accordingly charge-sheet had been submitted against this appellant to which cognizance has been taken. The case has been committed to the court of sessions and the charge has been framed under Sections 376 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether seven (07) witnesses have been examined.

P.W.1-Gobind Marandi is the father-in-law of the prosecutrix.

P.W.2-Manager Marandi is the husband of the prosecutrix.

P.W.3-Bulani is the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix.

P.W.4-Parwati Besra is the victim/informant.

P.W.5-Suryamuni Marandi is the eye witness who had accompanied the victim for collecting leaves in the jungle.

P.W.6-Mathur Swarnker is a formal witness who has proved the formal FIR as Ext.1 and Ext.-2.

P.W.7-Dr. Susma Jha is the Medical Officer who had examined the prosecutrix and had proved the injury report and found abrasion on right elbow almost 1/4”×1/4”. The nature of injury had been found simple in nature and the age of the injury had been assessed by the doctor about 10 days old.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has alleged two points:-i.e. firstly, eleven days delay in lodging the FIR which creates suspicion regarding the story of the prosecutrix and secondly there is no independent corroboration rather the medical evidence does not support the factum of rape.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2005 and it has been submitted that the prosecutrix has clearly deposed the factum of rape which has been immediately informed to the P.W.5 namely Suryamuni Marandi. The injury corroborates the incident and as such abovementioned judgment does not require any interference.

8. From perusal of the records, it appears that the prosecutrix has deposed regarding the factum of rape. The place and manner of rape has also been disclosed in the FIR as well as in her witness before the trial court. There is no variation rather transpire confidence. Nothing has been extracted in the examination to disbelieve this witness. Further, the version of P.W.4 (prosecutrix) gets corroboration from the deposition of P.W.5 i.e. a witness, who had gone to the jungle along with the vi