The delay in filing the FIR should not lead to discarding the prosecution case if the victim's testimony, supported by medical evidence, is credible and reliable.

JUDGMENT :

S. PUJAHARI, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar dated 20.03.2008 passed in S.T. No.215 of 2007, by which the appellants stood convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). The appellant nos.3 and 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year and other appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. Prosecution version, as unfolded during trial, is as follows :-

On 21.05.2006 around 8 p.m. while the victim was enroute home having attended the marriage ceremony of Suna Kisku, the appellants appeared like a comet on the road, in erotic impulse they caught hold of her and forcibly took her to an isolated place where appellant – Gulia Murmu followed by appellant – Gulu Majhi forcibly committed rape on her. The other accused persons caught hold of her to facilitate commission of lustful act of Gulia Murmu and Gulu Majhi. Thereafter, the appellants left the victim near her house. They had threatened to kill the victim as well as her father. Terribly frightened the victim did not dare to divulge such horrible act before her father. On the next day morning, the victim accompanied her father’s sister to her village where she stayed for nearly a month. Apparently to avoid that horrible happening she escaped from village. In the meantime, the father of the victim ascertained the fact of rape committed by the appellants. The victim was called back and being confronted she divulged before her parents as to how on that fateful night she was subjected to rape by two of the appellants while other appellants prevented her from raising alarm and to resist the lustful act of those two appellants. In frustration and despair, the sagging father (P.W.5) communicated that horrendous occurrence before the head of their village (P.W.4) who conveyed a village meeting on 17.06.2006. The appellants having confessed their guilt, P.W.4 fixed 18.06.2006 to impose punishment on those culprits. However, on 18.06.2006 instead of imposing any punishment on the appellants, P.W.4 planted a ‘KANIARI’ branch in front of his house which is a symbol of excommunication, that is to say, P.W.5 was ostracized by their community for the act of the victim and a fine of Rs.7000/- was imposed on him. On that day, P.W.1 lodged a report before the Police Officer, but on the intervention of the villagers, the matter was subsided and he was exempted from paying any fine. Subsequently thereafter, the village community again reiterated their action of ostracizing P.W.5 and again imposed fine of Rs.7500/- for the aforesaid act. There being thus no respite, P.W.5 lodged F.I.R. (Ext.1) on 21.11.2006 alleging the lustful act committed by the appellants. Accordingly, investigation was taken up, the victim was sent for medical examination, incriminating materials were seized and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and appellants faced trial. They denied the accusations and pleaded false implication. It was pleaded that P.W.5 having animosity against them, this false accusation has been made. The trial court placed reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there being delay over six months in filing of the F.I.R. and there being no satisfactory explanation offered by the prosecution, placing reliance on such evidence of the victim is contrary to law. The other contention of the learned counsel is that P.Ws.1 to 4 having not supported