The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborated testimony, along with the importance of medical evidence and the need to explain delays in lodging FIRs in cases of rape.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeals are filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri in Sessions trial No. 53 of 1996 whereby the appellants are convicted under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months. The appellants were also convicted under Section 3(1)(2) of SC/ST Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for two months.

2. In light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the victim has been denoted as “A”.

3. Wrapping the facts in brief, the victim was raped by the present appellants when she had gone for defecation in the fields on 11.09.1995 at about 6:30 p.m. On the alarm raised by victim, witnesses Chattrapal and Prabhu came and saved her. It is also mentioned in the FIR that the accused possessed weapons therefore, the complainant could not lodge FIR immediately.

4. On the basis of written report FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 197 of 1995 and investigation was entrusted upon R.P. Saroj. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, prepared site plan. Further investigation was conducted by Station House Officer Bal Govind Sonker who get the victim medically examined and submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons.

5. The case was committed by Magistrate to Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed and read over charges against the accused appellants. The accused appellants abjured from the charges and claimed to be tried. In support of their case the prosecution produced the following witnesses:

(1) P.W.-1 Victim;

(2) P.W.-2 Kedari Lal husband of the victim.

(3) P.W.-3 Constable Abdul Salim: formal witness.

(4) P.W.-4 Investigating Officer R.P.Saroj.

6. Investigating officer Bal Govind did not appear in the case to prove the charge-sheet though endeavours were made by the court. Witnesses Chattrapal and Prabhu were discharged by ADGC and not produced in Court as they refused to appear in witness box under the influence of the appellants.

7. Learned trial court after hearing rival submissions and perusal of record arrived at a conclusion that the delay in lodging the FIR has been properly explained and on the basis of case law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned trial court believed the sole testimony of victim and convicted the accused appellants.

8. Aggrieved with the judgment and order above mentioned, the present appeals have been filed by the appellants Madan, Maksood Ali, Munna and Bhaggu @ Masum Ali during the pendency of appeal the appellant Maksood had passed away and the appeal stood abated in respect of appellant Maksood vide order dated 20.09.2021.

9. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the finding of learned trial court is perverse, the investigation of the case is tainted. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; medical report do not support the prosecution case, no independent witness appeared in the witness box to support the prosecution story, learned trial court erred in disbelieving the defence version of appellants, therefore, it is prayed to set aside the judgment and order dated 05.12.1997 and acquit the accused appellants.

10. On the contrary learned A.G.A argued that the appellants committed rape on the victim and she herself support the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court is liable to be upheld.

11. Before analysing the evidence of the witnesses, it would be desirable to recapitulate them in brief:

12. P.W.-1 victim appeared and proved the FIR and stated on oath that when she went for defecation in the fields the accused pers