The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecutrix's statement to be unimpeachable and free from doubt in cases of sexual offences, along with the significance of corroboration and the impact of delay in reporting the incident.

Darshan Singh, J. - The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 13.3.2013 vide which appellant-Ved Parkash has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the `IPC') and order of sentence of the even date vide which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 31.8.2010, the prosecutrix moved a written complaint Ex.P5 to the SHO, Police Station City, Fatehabad, alleging therein that her marriage was solemnised with Gaurav Chhabra on 21.6.2010. Her husband was running a shop of selling shoes in Main Bazar, Fatehabad, in partnership with appellant-Ved Parkash. That on 5.7.2010 at about 5 P.M, she was taking bath in the bathroom of her house. Accused-appellant Ved Parkash came to their house and took her nude photographs while she was taking bath through a ventilator of the bathroom. When she came out after taking bath, accused appellant-Ved Parkash blackmailed her by showing her nude photographs and forcibly committed rape upon her and threatened if she raised a noise or told to her husband, he will kill her. Due to fear she did not tell her husband about the incident. That on 21.7.2010, appellant again came to their house and called her inside but due to fear she ran outside the house in the street. Thereupon, the appellant also went away. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband. They keep on thinking as to whether the matter should be reported to the police or not. They consulted the sister-in-law (Nanand) of the prosecutrix and it was decided that the appellant should be got punished. So, the matter was reported to the police vide written complaint Ex.P5 on the basis of which the formal FIR Ex.P8 was registered. The Investigating Officer moved an application Ex.P3 to the doctor for the medical examination of the prosecutrix. The doctor handed over the Investigating Officer the parcel containing the clothes of the prosecutrix vide memo Ex.P6. The Investigating Officer inspected the spot on 1.9.2010 and prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.P9.

3. The accused-appellant absconded and could not be arrested. Ultimately, he was declared as proclaimed offender vide order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad. Co-accused Jai Parkash, the brother of the appellant, was arrested on 2.12.2010 for harbouring the appellant and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C against Jai Parkash was filed for the offence punishable under Section 216 IPC.

4. Thereafter, the case was investigated by the State Crime Branch, Hisar. Ultimately, the appellant was arrested on 22.7.2011 by PW-9 Inspector Parveen Kumar. On interrogation, he suffered the disclosure statement Ex.P-18 and got recovered the mobile phone allegedly used by him to take the nude photographs of the prosecutrix. Accused-appellant was also got medico legally examined. After his medico legal examination, the doctor handed over two parcels and one envelope containing the sample seal. On 19.8.2011, the Investigating Officer moved an application for the DNA test of the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad. The blood sample of the appellant for DNA test was taken. The blood sample, the clothes of the prosecutrix and the accused were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. On completion of the formalities of investigation, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was presented in the Court.

5. The present appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 292, 376 and 506 IPC. Co-accused Ved Parkash his brother, was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 216 IPC.

6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosec