The delay in lodging the F.I.R. in cases of sexual assault cannot be equated with other offences, and the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if found reliable.

Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court record.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant Raju Yadav alias Mukesh against the judgment and order dated 6.4.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Room No. 9, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 766 of 2006 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo seven years simple imprisonment and also with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation of two months additional imprisonment.

3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that on 6.8.2005 at 20: 05 hours, the complainant Jai Pal Maurya lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station Manak Nagar, District Lucknow to the effect that in the intervening night of 5/6.8.2005 at about 3: 00 a.m. when he got up to ease himself then he found that her minor daughter aged about 14 years (hereinafter referred as victim) was not on her bed. Then he started her search. He raised suspicion on appellant as he was following her for a long period. When he went to the hut of Raju Yadav then he found Raju Yadav was lying on bed with her daughter and seeing the complainant he ran away. When the complainant enquired his daughter then she told that Raju Yadav brought her there on the pretext of giving Rs. 100/- and committed rape with her. She also told that Raju Yadav was having such relation for the last several days. She further stated that apart from Raju Yadav, one Varun Kumar also used to establish physical relations on the pretext of giving her money. After deciding that F.I.R. should be lodged, he went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R.

4. This F.I.R. was lodged against appellant Raju Yadav alias Mukesh and one Varun Kumar in Police Station Manak Nagar, District Lucknow, which was registered at case crime no. 63 of 2005. Underwear of victim was taken into custody and was sealed and its memo was prepared. Both the accused persons were arrested and their underwears were also taken into custody and memo was prepared and were sent for chemical examination. However, there is no chemical examination report on record. During investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence. The victim was medically examined on 7.8.2005 at Awanti Bai Hospital, Lucknow.

5. In the medical examination, axillary and pubic hairs were present. Breast were developed. Twenty weeks fetus was found present. No mark of injury was seen on any part of the body. In her external examination, no mark of injury was found on her private part. Hymen was old torn and healed. Uterus was also 20 weeks size. Vaginal smear was taken for pathological test and X-ray was advised for determination of her age. On the basis of x-ray report, her age was found around 16 years and she was having 20 weeks alive pregnancy. No definite opinion regarding rape was given.

6. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons. Accused Varun Kumar was declared to be juvenile in conflict with law, therefore, his case was separated. In this sessions trial only accused Raju Yadav has faced trial.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Jai Pal Maurya, the complainant, PW-2 Victim, PW-3 Dr. Saulat Rizvi, Medical Officer, PW-4 lady Constable 628 Radha Sharma, who had taken the victim for medical examination. PW-5 Dr. Someshwar Puri, Radiologist, PW-6 S.I. Satendra Nath Mishra, Investigating Officer of the case.

8. The defence of the accused was that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any rape with the victim. The witnesses have given false evidence. However, no evidence in defence was adduced.

9. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the appellant as above, hence the instant appeal.

10. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that underwears