The need for corroboration in cases based solely on the victim's testimony, especially in cases of inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the importance of fair consideration for both the victim and the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. On 10.01.2018, the victim (PW-1) lodged the First Information Report (FIR) (Exhibit-3) at Sadar Police Station, Gangtok, alleging that she was raped by the appellant on 17.08.2013, due to which she became pregnant and had to abort the baby on his advice. It was alleged that, thereafter, the appellant assured the victim that he would marry her. She further alleged that the appellant had taken her to his house after a month of the miscarriage in the pretext of changing his clothes and raped her again.

2. In Sessions Trial (F.T.) Case No. 15 of 2018 (State of Sikkim vs. Makraj Limboo, (2002) 10 SCC 743), the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok (the learned Judge), on 30.07.2019, convicted the appellant and sentenced him on 31.07.2019 under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/-. It was held that the case of repeatedly committing rape on the same woman under section 376(2)(n) IPC had not been made out. The learned Judge concluded that the appellant having committed rape upon the victim could not be ruled out. The learned Judge also held that the victim had explained the delay in lodging the FIR in detail.

3. Mr. N. Rai, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, challenges both the findings of the learned Judge. He further submits that even if this court were to believe the version of the victim, it would be seen that the act complained of may have been consensual and the FIR was lodged only because the appellant did not marry the victim. According to Mr. N. Rai, the delay of five years in lodging the FIR have not been explained sufficiently.

4. He drew the attention of this court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs. State of Orissa1, to impress that the sole testimony of the victim can be the basis for conviction, provided it is safe, reliable and worthy of acceptance. It was held that the evidence of the prosecution should be cogent and convincing and if there is any supporting material likely to be available then the rule of prudence requires that evidence of the victim may be supported by such corroborative material. Court should be strict and vigilant to protect society from such evils and in the interest of society, serious crimes like rape should be effectively investigated. It is equally important that there must be fairness to all sides, and in a criminal case a court has to consider the triangulation of interest. It involves taking into account the position of the accused, the victim and his or her family and the public.

5. Mr. N. Rai relied upon Ramdas and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170, in which the Supreme Court found that the delay of eight days in lodging the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained and the appellant therein was given the benefit of doubt. It was held:

“24. Counsel for the State submitted that the delay in lodging the first information report in such cases is immaterial. The proposition is too broadly stated to merit acceptance. It is no doubt true that mere delay in lodging the first information report is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the court must take notice. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case, and in a given case the court may be satisfied that the delay in lodging the report has been sufficiently explained. In the light of the totality of the evidence, the court of fact has to consider whether the delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the prosecution. That is a matter of appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay. Even in the absence of direct explanation there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. There are cases whe