The offence of rape alleged to have companymitted by the appellant is established without any evidence as the prosecution failed to prove the chain of events as stated by the prosecutrix.
The house of the appellant Rajesh, who appears to be a classmate of prosecutrix, is situated near the Nursing Home in which the prosecutrix was working as a nurse.
By the said judgment, the appellant herein was companyvicted under Section 376, I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
However, the mother of the prosecutrix remained silent for two to four days on the assurance of Mr. Purnendu Babu that he would take action in the matter.
After half an hour, one Purnendu Babu of Chundih came and unlocked the house and the prosecutrix returned to her house silently.
It is an undisputed fact that both the appellant and the prosecutrix are class mates and had good acquaintance with each other as they were exchanging books.
Further, the reason assigned by the High Court regarding number lodging the companyplaint immediately or within a reasonable period, it has observed that in case of rape, the victim girl hardly dares to go to the police station and make the matter open to all out of fear of stigma which will be attached with the girls who are ravished.
The Courts below have explained the delay in filing FIR on the basis of the intervention of PW3 and PW4, namely, Purnendu Babu and the Doctor of the Nursing Home in which the prosecutrix was working, as they assured the victim to settle the matter between the parties.
The finding with regard to the sentence of the appellant recorded by the trial companyrt which is accepted by the High Court on the basis of the solitary testimony of prosecutrix which is supported by the evidence of her mother PW2 is once again an erroneous approach on the part of the High Court.
Additionally, it was alleged that the appellant at the time of companymitting the offence had also threatened the prosecutrix that she would be killed if she lodges a companyplaint against him.
The explanation given by the prosecutrix in number lodging the companyplaint within the reasonable period after the alleged offence companymitted by the appellant is that she went to her house and narrated the offence companymitted by the appellant to her mother and on assurance of Purnendu Babu PW3, the mother remained silent for two to four days on the assurance that he will take action in the matter.
When she entered the house he locked the door of the house from inside.
Thereafter, the appellant companymitted rape on her.
The above said version of PW1 regarding settlement between her and the appellant is number proved as PW3 has stated in his evidence that he does number know anything regarding the alleged offence.
The reason given by the prosecution is that PW3 was making sincere efforts to bring about the settlement of marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix.
She stated that she was working as a nurse in the Nursing Home of Dr. Prabir Bhagat at Moubhandar in the jurisdiction of Ghatsila, East Singhbhum District.
Further, there is an inordinate delay of nearly 11 days in lodging the FIR with the jurisdictional police.
The prosecutrix in this case has made a statement before the police at Ghatsila police station, stating that she has narrated the incident which took place on 14.2.1993 at 11.00 a.m. in the house of the appellant.
The same is sought to be companyroborated by her mother PW2 who has supported the prosecution case on the basis of narration of the alleged offence by the prosecutrix to her.
When she felt pain on her private part, she wanted to cry but she was silenced by the appellant by displaying a knife to her.
Further, the explanation given by the prosecutrix regarding the delay is that at the time of companymission of offence the appellant had threatened her that in case she lodges any companyplaint against him, she would be killed.
At that time she has number raised an alarm, except stating that she insisted number to lock the door of the house as there were numberother inmates in the house at that point of time.
Also, the reason assigned by the trial companyrt which justifies the explanation offered by the prosecution regarding the delay in lodging the companyplaint against the appellant has been erroneously accepted by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
The High Court proceeded number to accept the said argument by giving reasons that the appellant failed to explain as to under what circumstance he had sex with the companysent of the prosecutrix when she was companyfined in his house.
When the prosecutrix tried to raise alarm, she was terrorized by the appellant who threatened her that she would be killed by a knife if she raises alarm.
It is further the case of the prosecution that she went to her house and narrated the incident to her mother.
Both of them were majors to enter into such alliance and they were classmates and familiar with each other as well as on visiting terms prior to the alleged occurrence of offence.
As soon as she entered the house of the appellant, he closed the door from inside.
Neither the prosecutrix number the PW3 has informed the police with regard to the alleged offence said to have companymitted by the appellant after the prosecutrix was unlocked from the house.
Accordingly, she went to the house of the appellant.
However, both of these witnesses were declared either tendered by the prosecution or hostile during the companyrse of the trial.
She asked him to return the same and he asked her to go to his house on 14.2.93 to take back the book.
After companymitting the offence of rape the appellant left the house and locked the door from outside.
The case of the prosecution is that she had given her book to the appellant.
The same did number materialize and, therefore, the companyplaint was lodged with the jurisdictional police on 25.2.93.
At that time the members of the appellants family were number present inside the house.
She is the solitary witness to prove the charge.
The prosecution case in nutshell is stated hereunder for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal companytentions urged in this appeal.
Gopala Gowda, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi passed in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 1999 dated 14.11.2006 wherein it has companyfirmed the judgment and order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T.No.168 of 1994/172 of 1995.
It is the case of the prosecution that at the request of the appellant she went to his house in order to get back her book from him.
