Appellant herein, stands convicted under section 376(1) and section 506(II) of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 25/2003 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biora District Rajgarh.

Briefly stated, the prosecution's case is that on the date of incident at about 2.00 p.m. prosecutrix PW 7 went to the house of her neighbourer Santoshbai to borrow some sugar from her. When she was returning, appellant, who was already hiding there, caught hold of her and committed sexual intercourse with her. After the act of intercourse appellant asked her not to disclose to anyone about the incident, else he will Kill her. Dur to the fear of the appellant, she did not tell her mother or anyone about the incident. Few days after the incident, there was a whisper in the village about the incident which brought ill fame to the prosecutrix PW 7. On being getting de-famed, she told her mother Savitribai (PW 9) and Jagdish (PW 3) about the incident. Thereafter, First Information Report (Ex. P-6) was made by prosecutrix PW 7 at Police Station Malawar District Rajgarh. She was examined by Dr. (Smt.) Jarina Khan (PW 1). After due investigation, charge sheet against the appellant was filed.

Learned trial Court framed charges under section 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Appellant abjured the guilt and was put to trial. After trial he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to a pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 376(1) of Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay 3 fine of Rs. 500/- under section 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code. Hence, this appeal.

Undoubtedly, there is delay of ten days in making First Information Report. It is not the case of prosecution that delay occasioned as some deliberations were going on as to whether a report is to be made or not? In rape cases generally the victims and their parents or guardian and relatives are reluctant in making the report of the incident as, it brings ill-name and hardships to the victim and report is generally made only after consultation and due deliberations with their well wishers. Therefore, mere delay in making First Information is not fatal in rape cases. But in the present case, it is apparent that prosecutrix PW 7 did not disclose about the incident to anyone. The explanation sought to this unnatural conduct is that the appellant, at the time of commission of rape, threatened her to life in case she discloses the incident to anyone. It is evident from the testimony of prosecutrix PW 7 that appellant never met her after the incident; therefore, it is unnatural and improbable that she was under such a fear or influence of the appellant that she did not disclose the fact of commission of rape.

It is also evident from her testimony that there was a rumour in the village regarding the incident. It is also clear from the testimony of prosecutrix PW 7 that when she felt that she was being de-famed, she disclosed to her mother and brother about the incident and thereafter, First Information Report was made. The conduct of the prosecutrix in not disclosing the incident even to her mother makes her testimony and prosecution's case doubtful.

Savitribai (PW 9), who is the mother of prosecutrix PW 7, has deposed in her testimony that appellant himself and his father told about the incident then she made an enquiry from the prosecutrix, then she told her about the incident. It is unnatural and improbable and does not sound to reason that appellant himself will make confession before the mother of the prosecutrix herself regarding commission of rape on her. Had he intended to do so, then he would not have prevented or cautioned prosecutrix from disclosing the incident to anyone.

It is not a case where simple delay in making First Information Report has occurred. This is a case where after the alleged commission of offence, prosecutrix had kept mum for about ten days and did not disclo