Inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony and unexplained delays in filing the FIR undermine the prosecution's case for a conviction under S.376 IPC.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Jagdalpur (Bastar) in Sessions Trial No. 81/2000 convicting the accused / appellant under S.376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, plus default stipulations.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 9.8.1999 FIR Ex. P - 1 was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW - 1) alleging that on 16.7.1999 at about 5 PM she, as usual, had gone to the house of the accused / appellant in connection with some house - hold work and while she was busy in her work, accused / appellant who was already present there, bolted the door from inside, made her lie on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that when she tried to raise an alarm, the accused / appellant threatened her and being under fear, she went to her house and three days thereafter when her husband returned home, she narrated the entire incident to him. Thereafter, her husband is said to have informed the Kotwar, Sarpanch and Panch of the village about the incident and then on 23.7.1999 Panchayat meeting was held which was attended by the accused / appellant also. It is further alleged that in the Panchayat the accused / appellant had admitted his guilt on which a penalty of Rs. 350/- was also imposed on him. The FIR further says that after this incident of rape, on 24.7.1999 wife of the accused / appellant had a quarrel with the prosecutrix and thereafter as decided in the panchayat, the report was lodged. It is alleged that on account of Panchayat meeting the delay has occurred in lodging the FIR. Based on this report, offence under S.376 IPC was registered against the accused / appellant and then the prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. (Smt.) Chandra (PW - 5) who gave her report Ex. P - 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police for the offence punishable under S.376 IPC followed by framing of charge by the Court accordingly.

3. So as to hold the accused / appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 08 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused / appellant was also recorded under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant as mentioned above in paragraph No. 1 of this judgment.

5. Counsel for the accused / appellant submits that there is 25 days' delay in lodging the report and for that no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecutrix. She further submits that had the second incident of quarrel between the prosecutrix and the wife of the accused / appellant not taken place, the prosecutrix would not have lodged the report. According to her, once the matter was reported to the husband of the prosecutrix within three days, the report could have been lodged just thereafter at least but surprisingly it was lodged 25 days after the incident. She further submits that even the medical report of the prosecutrix does not support the case of the prosecution.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent / State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below convicting the accused / appellant under S.376 IPC are strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. He submits that as the delay in lodging the report has been properly explained by the prosecutrix attributing the same to holding of Panchayat meeting where a penalty of Rs. 350/- was