The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of promptness in lodging FIRs, the impact of delay on the prosecution's case, and the potential for doubt when there are no eyewitnesses to the incident.

Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J. –

Heard Mr. Abdul Rafey Siddiqui, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Shri Umesh Verma, learned AGA for the State.

2. Instant appeal has arisen out of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Unnao inSession Trial No.549 of 2004 arising out of Case Crime No.150 of 2004, under Sections 376 /302 IPC State v. Shri Kant, Police Station-Maurawan, District-Unnao whereby learned trial court has acquitted accused appellant under section 376 IPC and convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him with imprisonment for life and along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation of three months' simple imprisonment.

3. According to the prosecution version, deceased 'A'(name of victim is not being disclosed) wife of Bhagauti Prasad was living in village-Jangalia Khera, Mazre, P.S. Maurawan, District-Unnao. Complainant Bachchu Lal is brother-in-law (Dewar) of the deceased. Husband of the deceased was living in Punjab. On 23.05.2004 at about 10.30PM, appellant came in the house of deceased and committed rape upon her when she raised an alarm then she was strangulated to death. Dead body of deceased was thrown in the field of Mahraj Deen. Nanhaku @ Badri Vishal Mishra, Smt. Nanhi, Smt. Rekha, Rakesh, Ayodhya, Chhetrapal, Awadhesh Mishra, Smt. Rajwati and others have seen the occurrence, but nobody came to interfere. First information report was lodged on 24.5.2004 at about 11.05AM at Police Station-Maurawan which was registered as Crime No.150 of 2004, under Sections 302, 201, 376, 452 IPC. Investigation was handed over to S.I Smt. Mamta Vidyarthi Station House Officer, P.S. Maurawan. Inquest proceedings were conducted on 24.5.2004 at about 12.15 which concluded at 1.50pm. Dead body was sealed and sent for postmortem. Site plan of the house of deceased as well as the place from where dead body was recovered were prepared. Postmortem was conducted on 25.5.2004 at 3.10pm. Clothes of deceased were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory wherein a report was received that the clothes contains human blood. After investigation charge-sheet under sections 302, 201 and 376 IPC against appellant was submitted by the investigating officer.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has produced P.W.1 Bachchu Lal (complainant), P.W. 2 Nanhakau (eye witness), P.W.3 Rekha, who was declared hostile, P.W. 4, Smt. Rajwati (eye witness), P.W. 5 Head constable Ram Bahadur Yadav who had prepared the chik FIR and registered the case in G.D., P.W.6 S.I. Smt. Mamta Vidhyarti Upadhya investigating officer, P.W.7 Dr. J. Lal who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased.

5. In the postmortem following antemortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased.

(1) Multiple abrasion mark 13cm x 4cm on the front of neck. Base of the mark is pale and margins red, on cutting of the mark ecchymosis present with laceration of snuff internal carotid artery hyoid bone is fractured.

(2) Concentric abrasion mark on left side of chest.

(3) Abrasion 2.5cm x 1cm on left elbow.

(4) Contusion 1.5cm x 1cm right side of back.

(5) Abrasion 3cm x 1.05cm on back at the level of scapula.

6. Cause of death was found as ante mortem strangulation. Rigor mortis passed from the body mouth and eyes were open lungs were found congested. Duration of death was about two days.

7. In the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, it is stated by the appellant that the deceased was of unsound mind and was suffering for fits. She was killed by Bachchu Lal who had falsely implicated him.

8. Learned trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 376 IPC against the appellant. Accordingly, acquitted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC, but learned trial court found the charge under section 302 IPC proved against the appellant.

9. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove t