IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.261 of 1993 Decided on: March 28, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant Versus Tapender Singh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondent : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, Judge (oral) State is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him, under Section 376 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 11.5.1987, a report was lodged by the prosecutrix that on 4.5.1987 when she was returning home from her school and reached near village Patsari, around 5.30 PM, two boys met her and enquired from her about the house of one Promila. She told them that her (Promila’s) house is situated near her own house. Those two boys then started following her. When she reached near a jungle in village Nakrari, one of the boys stayed back and the other dragged her towards the bushes and subjected her to sexual intercourse, without her consent. On reaching home, she told the incident to her sister PW-2 Meera. Since her mother was not present at the house, report was lodged with the police only on 11.5.1987. Prosecutrix was got medically examined. On completion of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes …2… investigation, respondent was challaned. He was tried and ultimately acquitted of the offence, under Section 376 IPC, by the trial Court. 3. We have heard the learned Law Officer for the State as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 4. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer, has submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix, coupled with the other evidence, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and that minor contradictions in their statements are not fatal to the prosecution case and, therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, the first plea raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is with regard to the delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence had taken place on 4.5.1987 and the report was lodged on 11.5.1987. The explanation furnished by the prosecutrix and her sister PW-2 Meera was that their mother was not at home at the relevant time and she came after six days. However, it has come in the statement of PW-2 Meera that the father of the prosecutrix was very much in the house and he had been told about the occurrence on 4.5.1987 itself. Why could not have the father of the prosecutrix accompanied her to lodge the report? No explanation in this regard has been furnished. 6. Now coming to the testimony of the prosecutrix, she has stated as PW-1 that she was accompanied by a Harijan girl when the respondent alongwith his other companions met her on the way and enquired about the house of Promila. However, the said girl has not been examined. It was from that Harijan girl that the inquiry was made by the two boys, including the respondent, about the location of the house of Promila. This statement is contrary to the earliest version …3… given by the prosecutrix to the police vide FIR Ext.PW1/A wherein she got recorded that the inquiry was made from herself. Not only this, in the earliest version she did not even make mention of any Harijan girl. The story appears to have been introduced, with a view to dispelling the impression which she thought the Court would form that she was a consenting party to the act of sexual intercourse, because of her having asked the boys to follow her. 7. We find from the evidence on record that probably the prosecutrix was a consenting party. No injury was noticed on her person. She did not raise any hue and cry to attract the attention of the people who could have been present in the forest or in the nearby Abadi (habitation). It appears that probably one Daya Ram had noticed the prosecutrix and the respondent in a compromising position. Reference in this behalf may be made to the testimony of the prosecutrix herself wherein she says that Daya Ram reached the spot on hearing her cries. 8. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in this appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J. March 28, 2008, (ss) ( V.K. Ahuja ), J.