The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of physical injuries, contradictions in the statements, and delayed lodging of the FIR can raise doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's case in a rape trial.

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

• Both appeals under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code.

• Arising out of judgment dated 19.03.2013, convicting appellant.

• Passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, Dehradun in Session Trial No. 86 of 2012, State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Shah.

• Arising from Case Crime No. 319 of 2011.

• Offences under Sections 376, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

These appeals arise of the judgment dated 19th March 2013 as rendered in the Sessions Trial No. 86 of 2012 “State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Shah”, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (First), Rishikesh Dehradun. As a consequence of rendering of the impugned judgment dated 19th March 2013, the appellant, who happens to be the natural father of prosecutrix has been held out to be guilty for offences committed by him which are punishable u/s 376 read with section 506 IPC and had been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C.

2. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge is said to have appreciated the evidence and had come to a conclusion that the offence as leveled against the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. has been established, and consequently he was sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for term of ten years and had been imposed with a penalty of Rs.10,000/- and further in an event of default to remit the penalty, he had been directed to further undergo an additional term of rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. He had also been further sentenced for a rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offences punishable u/s 506 IPC. Both the sentences had been directed to run concurrently.

3. The appellant is in jail. His bail application has been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court, while admitting the appeal on 16th April 2013.

4. Heard Mr. Puran Singh Rawat and Mr. Bhuwan Chand Bhatt, Advocates for the appellant and Mr. Sachin Pawar, Brief holder for the State.

5. Brief backdrop of the case as argued and revealed from records, is that according to the prosecution story, it was on 10th August 2011 that the incident is said to have chanced in between 6:10 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., when the mother of the prosecutrix is said to have heard the voice and shouting of her daughter i.e. the prosecutrix coming from a room and on hearing the voice, she rushed to the room from where the voice was coming and where the incident has chanced and saw that her husband, Rakesh Kumar Shah, appellant in the present appeal, was found in an objectionable position committing rape on her daughter, Km. Shikha. The complainant (Damyanti, wife of the appellant) had submitted during the course of investigation that the prosecutrix, Km. Shikha had informed her that for couple of months together, the appellant was repeatedly committing the offences on her by exerting threat of dire consequences and at times, even had physically assaulted her to meet his evil objective and physical lust by commission of an offence of rape. She further submitted that the prosecutrix has also informed her that the appellant has threatened the prosecutrix that in case, if she divulges any fact about the incident and of the commission of an offence of rape on her, she would be put to death. Even according to the mother Damyanti, an identical threat was extended to her too also by the appellant, so that the incident may not be brought to the knowledge of relatives, friends and to the public and he may succeed in his ill motive.

6. It is quite normal that on witnessing the said incident, no mother would have seen her husband and that too, a biological father committing the offence of u/s 376 IPC on her own biological daughter. Being this, PW1 being flabbergasted and taken aback by the said incident, she had lodged an FIR through post with the SHO, Kotwali, Rishikesh (Exhibit paper 53 Ka), informing about the said incident and praying that a relevant investigation and consequent prosecution may be drawn against the appellant-husband. T