In cases of sexual assault, delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if explained, especially when considering societal attitudes toward victims.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th September, 2010 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C.& S.T. Act), Drug in Special Case No.43/2009, whereby and where under, the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence under S.451, S.450 and S.376 (1) of the IPC and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 451 of the IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.2000 / , in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month
U/s. 450 of the IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months
U/s. 376 (1) of the IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months

2. Prosecution case is that on 1.8.2009 at about 4:15 p.m. in the evening, the appellant caught hold of the prosecutrix (PW 6) in the house of her friend Ku. Aasin (PW 7) and committed rape on her and when her maternal grandmother Dulourin Bai (PW 8) returned from her maternal house, this fact was informed to her by the prosecutrix, a minor and, thereafter, Dulourin Bai along with Kotwar took the matter to the family members of the appellant and finally FIR in Ex.P - 9 was lodged in the police station on 6.8.2009 at 12:50 hrs. against the appellant alleging commission of offence under S.451 and S.376 of the IPC and S.3 (1) 12 of the IPC. The prosecutrix as well as appellant were subjected to medical examination. Their wearing apparel was seized. Diary statements were recorded. Seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)) for chemical analysis. As it came out during investigation, that the prosecutrix belongs to halba tribe, her caste certificate was also collected. It is said that prosecutrix was a minor. Birth certificate was also collected during investigation and charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, alleging commission of offence alleged as described above. Appellant abjured guilt. He was subjected to trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. The appellant was examined in connection with incriminating circumstances and evidence appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. The appellant denied and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. No defence witness was examined.

3. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution particularly, the testimony of prosecutrix, learned trial Court held the appellant guilty of commission offence alleged against him and sentenced him as described above.

4. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant argues that the prosecution story is highly doubtful and smacks of false implication of the appellant. He submits that the evidence of prosecutrix (PW 6) suffers from serious contradictions and omissions. The narration of story of she having been subjected to rape in the house of her friend is highly improbable and does not inspire confidence. It is next contended that the prosecutrix has given contradictory statement with regard to her conduct at the time when she was allegedly subjected to rape. Her conduct of not calling for any held though, the incident is said to have been committed in the house of her friend, shows that the prosecutrix is either telling lie or it was a case of consent. The evidence of prosecutrix is in serious contradiction with the testimony of her friend Ku. Aasin (PW 7), who has stated that their hands were tied and mouth was gagged with a cloth, whereas prosecutrix. (PW 5) has denied suggestion that