The main legal point established is the requirement for corroborative evidence, a blemish-free testimony from the victim, and the impact of delay in reporting on the credibility of rape cases.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - Accused Naveen faced trial by learned Additional Sessions Judge(Exclusive Court), Bhiwani, who vide judgment dated 10.1.2018 convicted him for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n)/450 IPC and vide order 11.1.2018, he was sentenced as under:

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The accused-convict Naveen, who is appellant before this Court prays that the appeal be accepted, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him be set aside and he be acquitted of the charge framed against him.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as per the prosecution story, are that on 8.8.2017, the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity in view of Section 228-A IPC and as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court Court in case titled State of Karnataka Vs. Puttaraja , (2004) 1 RCR(Criminal) 113 Supreme Court, 113 (SC) and referred to as the prosecutrix) accompanied by Sagarmal son of Dhyan Chand, resident of Ward No.6, Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani went to Police Station Women, Bhiwani and submitted a written complaint there, alleging therein that she is aged about 28 years and resident of Ward No.6, Bawani Khera; that on 8.5.2017 at about 11:15 p.m., Naveen son of Satyawan, resident of village Khanak trespassed in her house and committed rape upon her by use of force; that on subsequent occasions also, he had been raping her repeatedly on the promise of performing marriage with her, however, when she asked him to marry her, he refused to do so, rather threatened that if she disclosed the incident to anybody, he would kill her.

4. On the basis of that complaint, formal FIR was registered. Investigation in the case started. During the course of investigation, accused was arrested in this case. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation and other formalities, challan against the accused was prepared and filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani.

5. On presentation of challan in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani, she supplied copies of documents relied upon in the challan to the accused free of costs as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Then finding that the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani from where it was entrusted to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge(Exclusive Court), Bhiwani.

6. On receipt of case in the Court, learned Additional Sessions Judge(Exclusive Court), Bhiwani observing that prima facie charge for offences under Sections 376(2)(n)/450/506 IPC was disclosed against the accused, he was charge-sheeted accordingly, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. During the course of its evidence, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses namely Laxmi Devi as PW1, Dharmender, Draughtsman as PW2, Constable Rajesh as PW3, HC Virender as PW4, SI Lok Ram as PW5, Illaqa Magistrate, Bhiwani as PW6, the prosecutrix as PW7, Dr.Rakesh Arora as PW8, Sagarmal as PW9, ASI Dharmli as PW10 and Dr.Priyanka Kadian as PW11.

8. With that the prosecution evidence got concluded.

9. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him were put to such accused but he denied the allegations contending that he is in