In rape cases, the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony is paramount, and delay in filing an F.I.R. may not be fatal under particular circumstances.

ORDER :

ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Order on Criminal Misc. Recall Application No.2 of 2026

1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the non-bailable warrants have already been executed and both the appellants have already been arrested on 17.01.2026 and have been sent to the jail.

2. In view thereof, the instant recall application having become infructuous is disposed of specifically in the view of the fact that the criminal appeal is being heard on merits.

Order on Criminal Appeal

1. Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 01.03.1988 passed by the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 563 of 1986 (State vs. Mangey and others), whereby both the appellants herein were convicted for the offense under Section 376 I.P.C. and were directed to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment.

3. The facts in brief are that on 14.08.1985 at around 6:00 AM in the morning, the informant PW3 herein has submitted a written report, which was scribed by PW2. On the basis of the said written report, the instant F.I.R. was lodged. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.08.1985 at 6:00 P.M., the wife of the complainant, the prosecutrix was going towards the fields in search of her husband from her house. When she reached about three to four fields away from the village, then both the accused persons came out from the maize field and obstructed the way of the prosecutrix and forcibly taken her into the maize field where they have broken the waist cord of the prosecutrix and thereupon both the accused persons have raped her turn by turn. Hearing her cries, Qasim and Ajba who were also coming from the village reached at the spot and saw that the prosecutrix was lying on the ground and both the accused persons had run away in the jungle. However, they could not be caught on the spot. Thereupon, the prosecutrix returned back to her house and when her husband came back from the fields, she narrated the entire story to her husband. Thereupon, next day morning, the complainant got scribed the written report and submitted the same at the police station on 14.08.1985 at 6:05 AM at Police Station- Ramala. On the basis of such written report, the F.I.R. was registered, the case was investigated and charge-sheet was filed against the appellants herein. On submission of the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the sessions court for trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1, Jagbir Singh, scriber of the report as PW2, and Israel, the husband of the prosecutrix as PW3. Constable Ram Kishan as PW4 who has registered the F.I.R. and made the relevant GD entries. The Investigation Officer could not be examined as prior to the examination he has died. Thus, the Constable Ram Kishan has proved the F.I.R., GD entries, site-plan, charge-sheet, etc.

5. In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, both the accused persons have denied the charges and claimed trial.

6. After registration of the F.I.R., the medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted on 14.08.1985 itself. On the internal examination of the prosecutrix, the Medical Officer has observed as under:

"No injury on private part. Hymen torn. Old healed hymen tear the vagina admits two fingers. Uterus normal in shape and size firm mobile in clear os clesed. No bleeding or discharge P/V, vaginal semen taken and sent for H.P. Enew."

7. For determination of the age of the prosecutrix, the X-ray was advis