IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Unexplained two days delay in lodging report with police in offence of rape would be fatal to prosecution.
(2) Conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of prosecutrix if her statements are not found to be trustworthy and worthy of credence.

JUDGMENT

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 11.6.1986, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City convicted the accused appellant Ramdhan in the offence under Section 376 of I.P. Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of 4 years and a fine of Rs. 400 in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 4 months.

2. The facts of the prosecution case, in must shell, are thus:

“That on 4th August, 1984, the cow of complainant PW3 Buddha went for grazing on a hill. The cow did not return to home, hence at the early hours of 5th August, 1984, the complainant along with his wife and brother went on a hill in search the cow. All these three were searching the cow at different places, but not too far from each other. It is stated that the accused Ramdhan Gurjar also had come on the hill to graze his buffaloes. It is alleged that he suddenly caught hold of Rukmani and made her to lie on the ground. The accused forcibly ravished her. On hearing the screams of Rukmani, her husband and his brother rushed to the spot where they found that the accused had made Rukmani to lie on the ground and he was committing rape upon her. Having seen them, the accused fled from there after fulfilling his erotic sortie. The prosecutrix was in a floundered state. When the complainant and his wife were to go to police station for lodging the report, the accused threatened them and restrained from going to police station. On 7th August, 1984, the complainant Buddha Ram gave a written report Ex. P1 to Station House Officer, Police Station Garhmora who lodged the FIR Ex. P4 and commenced investigation.

3. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan Ex. P2, got the prosecutrix medically examined, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. arrested the accused and got him also medically examined. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused in the Court.

4. The accused Ramdhan was indicted for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to further its version, the prosecution examined only five witnesses. On being asked to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the statements of witnesses under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused claimed himself to be innocent and submitted that Laxman Sarpanch, on account of political rivalry, got a false case registered against him for the reason that his brother Kalyan and Laxman Sarpanch had contested the election of Sarpanch.

5. On completion of trial, the Court convicted the accused appellant and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove.

6. Heard learned counsel for the accused appellant, learned PP appearing for the State and carefully, perused the relevant material on record.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the First Information Report Ex. P4 was lodged after an inordinate delay of more than two days, which cast doubt about its genuineness. The prosecution has not furnished any satisfactory explanation of this delay, hence it proves fatal to the prosecution. He further canvassed that the prosecutrix in her deposition before the Court stated that the accused while ravishing her, broke her bangles and tore blouse, but the investigating officer is not found to have seized the broken pieces of bangles from the place of occurrence nor seized the blouse. Not only this, site plan Ex.P2 also does not speak of any incident of rape having been committed there. No independent witness has been explained to support the case of the prosecution. Hence, merely on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, the accused should not be convicted. In view of these circumstances, the appeal deserves to be acquitted.

8. E converso, the learned PP appearing for the State defended the impugnecl judgment and stated the same to be just and proper. He contended that the statements of pro