Full Judgment Text
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
v.
PREM SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2002)
NOVEMBER 11, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant- State and learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter
referred as to as the `accused').
2. On the allegation that the respondent had sexually ravished
PW- 1 and had outraged the modesty of not only P W- 1, but of
several other girl students of the school where the respondent was a
teacher, law was set in motion. The respondent was further charged
for commission of offences relating to threatening the prosecutrix
with dire consequences in case she disclosed the incident to
somebody else. The accused faced trial for offences punishable
under Sections 37 6 , 35 4 and 50 6 of the Indian Pen al Code, 18 6
0 (in short 'the I PC').
3. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh
found the accused guilty of all the offences, sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years', six months' and six
months' respectively. In appeal, the High Court set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence and directed acquittal of the
respondent.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-
State submitted that the reasons indicated by the High Court are
indefensible. The High Court has treated delay in lodging the FIR in a
case involving rape, to be similar to that involving other offences.
Additionally, it was submitted that the evidence of P W- 1, the
prosecutrix has been lightly brushed aside.
5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent- accused
submitted that not only there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR,
but also, the fact that the prosecutrix claimed to have told her mother
and a teacher about the alleged incident at the first instance and,
thereafter, there was total silence of nearly two years, casts doubt on
the authenticity of the prosecution version. In any event, it is
submitted, that the offence punishable under Section 3 7 6 I PC is
not made out.
6. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR question is concerned,
the delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the
case involving other offences. There are several factors which weigh
in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming
to the police station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition bound society
prevalent in India, more particularly, rural areas, it would be quite
unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that
there is some delay in lodging the FI R . In that score, learned
counsel for the appellant is right that the High Court has lost sight of
this vital distinction. Additionally, we find that the prosecution has
clearly established commission of offence punishable under Sections
35 4 and 5 0 6 I PC. So far as the offence punishable under Section
3 7 6 I PC is concerned, the basic ingredients are set out in Section
37 5 I PC. On a reading of the evidence of the prosecutrix, we find
that a case of rape has not been established so far as the
respondent is concerned.
7. That being the position, we allow the appeal of the State to the
extent that the respondent is convicted for offences punishable under
Sections 3 5 4 and 5 0 6 I PC. The sentences are two years' and six
months' rigorous imprison ment respectively. It is stated that the
appellant has suffered more than that period of custody. If that being
so, he need not surrender to custody,. The appeal is allowed to the
aforesaid extent.