The court affirmed that delay in filing an FIR does not weaken rape accusations, particularly when contextual explanations validate the prosecution's claims and corroborative evidence supports the victim's statement.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The Petitioner through this CRLREV challenges the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2017 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji in S.C. Case No.8/20 of 2012- 2013 and the judgment dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji in CRLA No.02 of 2017.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the victim lodged a written report before the Kantabanji police station on 03.10.2011 alleging therein that on 26.09.2011 at about 8.00 A.M while she had been to attend the call of nature to an open filed, at that time the accused person named Pitambar Bhati of village Dangamara came, caught hold her and committed rape on her. The victim tried to get out of his clutch but could not do so. The victim raised hullah and on hearing her hullah, her father who was present in his cotton field rushed to the spot. By seeing her father, the accused person tried to flee from the spot. Based on the said report, the I.I.C of the said P.S registered Kantabanji P.S. Case No.139 dated 03.10.2011 under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and took up investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, he examined the victim and other witnesses, visited the spot, prepared the spot map, sent the victim and accused person to the hospital for their medical examination, seized the articles, prepared the seizure list, gave the zima of the articles after executing proper zimanama. Later, they received the report from the Medical Officer and after completion of his investigation submitted the charge sheet against the accused person. Thereafter, the learned J.M.F.C, Kantabanji took cognizance of offence under of the I.P.C. and committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial.

3. Learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2017 passed the in S.C. Case No.8/20 of 2012-2013 convicted and sentenced the Petitioner/Revisionist under Section 376 of the I.P.C. Thereafter, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji vide judgment dated 17.11.2021 passed in CRLA No.02 of 2017 confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2017 passed the in S.C. Case No.8/20 of 2012- 2013 by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji. Hence, this Criminal Revision.

II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) During the course of investigation the present Petitioner was apprehended on 03.10.2011 and after completion of investigation, the police personnel submitted charge sheet as against the Petitioner. After complying with all the formalities, the learned Asst. Session Judge, Kantabanji framed the charges for the above alleged offences.

(ii) The victim and the petitioner belong to the same locality. Marriage proposal of the petitioner with the victim was moved. But the family members of the petitioner did not agree. In order to take revenge, the victim filed this false case against the present petitioner. However, that aspect has not been considered by both the courts below. The occurrence took place on 26.09.2011. However, the F.I.R has been lodged on 03.10.2011 which is about seven days after the occurrence. The delay of lodging of the F.I.R has not been properly explained which cast serious doubt regarding the genuineness and veracity of the prosecution story. It proves to be an afterthought.

(iii) The P.W.3 has stated that the victim was about 14 years old at the time of the alleged incident. The victim also s