IMPORTANT POINT
The testimony of a victim in a rape case can be sufficient for conviction, and delays in reporting do not automatically undermine credibility, particularly in cases involving minors.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Prasad, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, both dated 14.02.2008 passed in S.T. No. 100/2004 passed by Shri Bhola Prasad, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX, Ranchi, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of eight years and the learned Court below has further directed that the period of detention undergone by the convict as under trial prisoner shall be set off towards the period of sentence in view of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The prosecution case was initiated on the basis of written report submitted by victim, aged about 14 years, stating therein that on 11.4.2003 at about 10.30 A.M., while the informant-victim had gone to the nearby forest for picking dung. Then, at that time the accused Kario Nayak, son of Malinder Nayak came and caught hold of her from her back side. On that she told the accused Kario Nayak that she is his cousin sister so why he wants to outrage her modesty. On that the accused replied that he treats his own sister only his sister and the rest are not his sister and thereafter the accused dragged the informant-victim, thrown her on the ground and torn her salwar. The informant cried and tried to resist the accused but the accused did not take care and further torn the under garment of the victim and committed rape on her and after committing rape the accused Kario Nayak fled away. The informant thereafter cried there and she was feeling pain in her private parts and anyhow saving her dignity from the torn clothes she came weeping to her house. It is further stated that on the way the co-villagers Mudra Nayak, Paku Nayak and Shambhu Nayak met her to whom she told about the incident. On return to her house she told about the matter to her sister Dukhni Devi and uncle Shambhu Nayak and other family members. It is stated that as the parents of the victim were not in the house, therefore, on 14.04.2003 the victim came with her parents and other relatives to the police station and submitted the written report about the occurrence and also produced the undergarment having blood stain and white stain mark before the police.

3. Heard Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the informant-prosecutrix. It is submitted that there is delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. and as such the prosecution case becomes doubtful. It is submitted that the learned Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that no sign of rape was found by the Doctor on examination of the victim. It is submitted that several prosecution witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution.

It is submitted that the learned Court has erred in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence by not considering that most of the important witnesses of this case have turned hostile and P.W.-1 is heresay on the point of occurrence.

It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the statement of P.W.-6-the victim girl of this case was not corroborated by the evidence of Medical Officer who had examined the victim girl on 14.4.2003 just three days after the occurrence and found no injury anywhere on the body and she had not complaint of pain or injury anywhere and even the doctor further opined that the findings of physical examination and pathologists report suggest that there was no sexual assault with the girl.

It is submitted that the learned Court below has not considered that the clothes, handed over to the police by