The delay in filing the FIR can be adequately explained and does not necessarily undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case.

MEHTAB S. GILL, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 14.8.1992 of the sessions Judge, Rohtak whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by appellant ram Dia against the judgment dated 25.10.1991 of the J. M. I. C. , Rohtak.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 25.10.1987 Sumitra complainant made an application before the police that she was married to Satpal about three years back. Out of the said wedlock one son was born. On 21.10.1987, she and her husband were sleeping on separate cots in their house. At about 12.00 or 12.30 in the night, some person entered her house and placed his hands on her stomach and tried to break open the string of her salwar. She woke up and caught hold of his hands and recognised him as being Ram Dia, the present appellant.

3. Appellant rescued himself and ran away to his house which was nearby to the house of the complainant.

4. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box sumitra PW-1, Satpal PW-2 and Inspector Ravinder Kumar PW-3.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is a delay of 5 days in lodging of the F. I. R. The occurrence had taken place at 12.00/12.30 in the night of 21/22.10.1987. Complainant Sumitra recorded her statement with the police on 25.10.1987. The sole independent witness Devi Singh P. W. was given up as having been won over. Appellant examined Chand Ram DW-1 and Prahlad singh DW-2, who categorically stated that appellant was falsely implicated in the case. There are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of sumitra PW-1 and Satpal PW-2.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the impugned judgment with their assistance.

7. The delay of 5 days in loldging of the F. I. R. has been adequately explained by the prosecution. Complainant Sumitra PW-1 has stated that from 21.10.1987 to 25.10.1987, she along with her husband had gone to the respectables of the village and asked them to intervene. She wanted the matter to be settled, as her reputation was at stake. But the respectables of the village did not listen to her. There was no personal enmity or previous enmity between the parties that the appellant should be falsely implicated. Even going through the statements of sumitra PW-1 and Sat Pal PW-2, they corroborate each other inter se.

8. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Conviction of the appellant is maintained. Appeal has been pending in this Court for the last 14 years and the sword of conviction has been hanging over the head of the appellant. This itself is a punishment. Sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent already undergone. Appeal is dismissed.