Unexplained delay and material contradictions in prosecutrix's testimony justify upholding the accused's acquittal.

The prosecutrix (Appellant) was married to Ashok Sen in 2013

She alleged that in the month of Hindi Magh, 2016 (approximately February), her brother-in-law (Respondent No. 1) entered her home while she was alone and committed forceful sexual intercourse while threatening to kill her

She further alleged that despite informing her in-laws and husband, no action was taken, and the respondent committed the act again

She subsequently moved to her parental home and lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) on 14/05/2016 at Police Station Arang

Following a trial (Sessions Trial No. 122/2016), the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 376 and 506 Part-II of the IPC on 09/07/2018

The prosecutrix appealed this acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC

Whether the trial court committed a legal error or impropriety in acquitting the respondent based on the discrepancies in the prosecutrix's testimony and the delay in lodging the FIR.

The court considered Section 376 (punishment for rape) and Section 506 Part-II (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code

Procedurally, the court applied the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which grants the victim the right to appeal against an acquittal

The court also examined the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC

the impact of an unexplained delay in filing a First Information Report (FIR) on the credibility of the prosecution's case

The High Court found significant material disparities in the prosecutrix’s (PW-1) testimony compared to her initial written report.

While her report (Ex.P/1) stated she informed her parents-in-law and husband, her court testimony claimed she only informed her husband

The court noted that she alleged a third attempt at molestation and specified a date (10/02/2016) during the trial, neither of which were mentioned in the original report

Furthermore, although her Section 164 CrPC statement (Ex.P/5) mentioned the use of a knife and she testified that her clothes were torn and bangles broken, no such items were seized, and no physical injuries were recorded

The court also highlighted that her father (PW-2) contradicted her claim that she had disclosed the incident to him directly, and the prosecution failed to examine her mother, a crucial witness

Finally, the court observed that the FIR was lodged more than three months after the alleged incident without a proper explanation for the delay

The Court found the appeal to be devoid of merit and dismissed it, upholding the judgment of the trial court