IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 651 of 1996. Decided on: 29.04.2010. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Satpal Singh alias Pinku. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deepak Gupta, Judge(Oral) : This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 24th April, 1996, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1995, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.07.1994, the prosecutrix alongwith her parents was working in the fields. She was sent home to prepare the meals. According to the prosecutrix, when she was preparing meals, the accused 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. suddenly entered her house, broke the Nara (string) of her Salwar and forced her to lie down on the ground. Thereafter, the accused committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. After committing rape on the prosecutrix, he went away and threatened that he would kill her in case she disclosed this fact to any person. 3. Admittedly, the prosecutrix did not disclose the factum of rape having been committed on her to any person for about 10 days, when she reported the matter to her father. The father also did not lodge a complaint with the police and instead made a complaint to the Panchayat and to the mother of the accused, and wanted to settle the matter out of court. The F.I.R. in question was lodged only on 15.10.1994, more than two months after the incident. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and the accused were both got medically examined. Other investigation was carried out. The accused was charged with having committed the offences aforesaid. After trial, he has been acquitted, hence, the present appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the accused. 5. The statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence because of the non-lodging of the complaint itself for a long number of days. It is true that delay by itself is not fatal to the prosecution cases. However, the prosecution must give some reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the report. In the present case, virtually no explanation has been given. 6. First we come to the delay in the prosecutrix’ making a complaint to her own family members. According to the prosecutrix, she did not report the matter to her family members because the accused had threatened her. Other than stating that she complained to her father after 10 days, she did not state a word as to why she was quiet and what compelled her to make a complaint after 10 days. 7. The father of the prosecutrix while appearing as PW- 5, stated that when he went home carrying a bundle of grass, he saw the accused coming out of the house. According to the prosecutrix, she had resisted the advances of the accused and gave nail scratches on his face and the blood started oozing out of the face of the accused. The father, however, did not see any scratches on the face of the accused. This makes the story of the prosecutrix unreliable. The prosecutrix told her father that she had been raped by the accused on 7th August, almost 10 days after the incident. He then reported the matter to the Panchayat for the first time on 1st September vide application Ex.-PW 5/A. He has not given any explanation as to why he did not make a complaint to the Panchayat immediately after his daughter told him about the incident. In fact, according to him, the Panchayat advised him and wanted that a case be registered against the accused, but he refused to register a case and was interested to settle the matter with the family of the accused. These factors clearly indicate that the sex, if any, was consensual in nature and once the prosecutrix and the accused were discovered by the father, an attempt was made to get them married or settle the matter in some other manner, but when this attempt failed, then a complaint was lodged after about 2 ½ months. The statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence at all. She was over 16 years of the age at the time when the incident took place and could have consented to consensual sex. In case she had been raped, she would have never wanted to compromise the matter, but would have wanted that the accused be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. For these reasons, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused and there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge April 29, 2010. (bhupender)