Conviction for rape can rely solely on the prosecutrix's credible testimony, with proper explanation of FIR delay not undermining the prosecution’s case.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 27-9-2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Muneli, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 104/2001. By the impugned judgment, accused / appellant Jaganu Sahu has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently : -
Conviction Sentence
Under S.376 (1), IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Under S.506 - B, Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 1/2 month.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:
On 11-2-2001, at about 10.00 a.m., prosecutrix (PW 1) had gone to forest for collecting wood along with her friends Kalyani Bai (PW 4) and Rukhmani Bai (PW 5). When she was collecting the wood, appellant Jaganu Sahu came there behind prosecutrix (PW 1) and caught her. When she tried to shout, the appellant gagged her mouth with lungi, caused her to fall down and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Having heard her shout, her both friends Kalyani Bai (PW 4) and Rukhmani Bai (PW 5) came there. They witnessed the appellant committing rape on the prosecutrix (PW 1). Having seen them, the appellant fled from there. The appellant threatened the prosecutrix (PW 1), Kalyani Bai (PW 4) and Rukhmani Bai (PW 5) that if they will narrate the incident to anyone, then he will kill them. Prosecutrix (PW 1) narrated the incident to her mother. At that time, her father Bahadur alias Baba Yadav (PW 3) was not present at home. Bahadur alias Baba Yadav (PW 3) came back home at about 4:00 p.m. Then, prosecutrix (PW 1) narrated the incident to him also. Prosecutrix (PW 1) lodged First Information Report (Ext. P1) in Police Station, Kunda. Prosecutrix (PW 1) was sent to District (Government) Hospital, Kawadha for medical examination vide Ext. P7. Dr. Smt. Aparna Bakharu (PW 7) examined prosecutrix (PW 1) and gave her report (Ext. P8). Two slides of vaginal swab of prosecutrix (PW 1) were prepared. Petticoat of prosecutrix (PW 1) and slides of vaginal swab were seized vide Ext. P2. The appellant was also sent to Community Health Centre, Kunda for medical examination vide Ext. P3. Dr. P. L. Kurre (PW 6) examined the appellant and gave his report (Ext. P4), in which, he found that the appellant could perform the act of sexual intercourse.
In further investigation, spot maps (Ex. P - 16 and P - 18) were prepared. Underwear of the appellant was also seized vide Ex. P14. Seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for examination vide Ext. P17.
After completion of the investigation, charge - sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Bilaspur, from where it was received on transfer by Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Bilaspur, who, conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

3. Shri R. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly. In absence of proper explanation therefor, the prosecution story becomes doubtful. He further argued that the evidence of prosecutrix (PW 1) is full of contradictions. The case of the prosecution is highly improbable. It is impossible for anyone to commit forcible sexual intercourse in presence of other women. On close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, possibility of prosecutrix (PW 1) having being consenting par