Crl.A. 228/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.8.2005 passed by the learne d Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No.17(K)/2005 c onvicting the accused appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to suff er Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default , to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. By the aforesa id judgment, the learned trial Court had acquitted the accused appellant of the offences under Section 379/506 IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Smti. Numali Hazarika lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Dispur Police Station on 23.1.2003 stat ing that on 21.1.2003 around 6 P.M., while she was coming from Chaymile to Hengr abari in a rickshaw by Borbari Road and while she disembarked from the rickshaw for going to her house located at Hengrabari Milan Nagar, the accused appellant pulled her away and committed the offence of rape on her. It was further stated that as she tried to raise hue and cry, she was threatened with her life by wie lding a sharp weapon. She was also threatened not to disclose the incident to an y one, or else, he would liquidate her. A sum of Rs.12,000/-, which was in posse ssion of the complainant, was also snatched away from the bag by the accused. 3. On receipt of the aforesaid ejahar, Dispur Police Station Case No.75/200 3 under Sections 376/506/379 IPC was registered. The police started investigati on and finding sufficient materials against the accused appellant, the Investiga ting Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused appellant under Section 376/506/379 IPC. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the committing Magistrate committed the case to the Court of the learned Sessio ns Judge, Kamrup, wherein Sessions Case No.17(K)/2005 was registered. The case w as transferred to the Court of learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwa hati and the learned Judge, on the basis of the materials on record, framed char ges under Sections 376/506/379 IPC. The charges being read over and explained to the accused appellant, the accused appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and, at the same time, claimed trial. 4. During the trial, the prosecution, in order to establish the charges as against the accused appellant, examined 5 witnesses. The complainant was examine d as P.W.1. The nephew of P.W.1, who had written the ejahar, was examined as P.W .2. The sister-in-law of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.3. The Investigating Officer in the case was examined as P.W.4 and the doctor as P.W.5. P.W.5 had exhibited t he medical examination report as Ext.4. The defence had also adduced the evidenc e of the witnesses, examined in the form of D.W.1 and D.W.2. 5. P.W.1 is the prosecutrix. She had deposed that the incident took place o n 21.1.2003 around 6 P.M. while she was going towards her home in Hengrabari by a rickshaw from Chaymile. There was a stretch of road of about 2/3 kilometers wh ere there was no human habitation. She had also stated that the accused got down from a rickshaw and, thereafter, dragged her from her rickshaw to a field and c ommitted rape on her. While she had raised hue and cry, she was threatened by sh owing a sharp weapon. The accused raped her 3 times and, thereafter, he had left her in an unconscious state. Initially, she did not inform about the incident t o any body, but later on, related the incident to her sister-in-law (elder siste r of her husband), who was examined as P.W.3 and her son, who was examined as P. W.2. It was only thereafter that she came to lodge an ejahar, which was exhibite d by her as Ext.1. P.W.1 also had proved her statement before the Magistrate rec orded under Section 164 CrPC as Ext.2. She had also deposed that the accused had also taken away Rs.12,000/- from her bag. She stated that out of fear of the ac cused, she had left her previous place of residence immediately after the occurr ence. 6. In her cross-examination, P.W.1 had narrated that her husband had abando ned her and had taken with him her two children. She also denied the suggestion that she had instituted a false case against the accused as she was found in a compromising position with one Monilal Rajkumar, one of her neighbours, by the a ccused person and the delay in lodging the ejahar was solely on account of the f act that she was devising ways and means to come out of the tight spot she was in, she having been found in a compromising position with Monilal. 7. P.W.2 is the scribe of the ejahar who wrote the ejahar as per the versio n given by P.W.1. P.W.2 stated that on 23.1.2003, P.W.1 came to their residence and narrated the incident of rape committed by the accused. P.W.1, according to him, also told that the accused had also snatched away Rs.12,000/- from her bag. Though in his cross-examination, he indicated that he had not signed as the scr ibe in the ejahar, but he reiterated that it was he, who had, in fact, written t he ejahar. 8. P.W.3 is the sister-in-law, who corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 to th e effect that P.W.1 came to the residence of P.W.2, where she also resided and h ad narrated the incident of rape and snatching away of money. She had deposed th at she had taken P.W.1 to the police station for the purpose of lodging the F.I. R. In her cross-examination, she had deposed that the ejahar was lodged on the d ay when P.W.1 came to their residence. 9. P.W.4 is the S.I. of Police of the police station, who had conducted the investigation and had laid the charge-sheet, Ext.2. It is in his evidence that he had sent P.W.1 to the Court of Judicial Magistrate for recording her statemen t under Section 164 CrPC. It was he, who had collected the medical examination r eport of the victim. In his cross-examination, he had indicated that he had cond ucted search for the rickshaw puller, but could not succeed to find him. 10. P.W.5, as has been noted earlier, is the doctor, who had proved the medi cal examination report as Ext.4. According to him, the following injuries are f ound as per the medical examination report :- Injury : 1. One scratch abrasion of the 4 cm x 0.2 cm present in front of neck. At t he level of thyroid cartilage. (ii) One healed abrasion of size 5 cm x .5 cm over the lower lip on rt angle of mouth. (iii) Grazed abrasions of size varying from .5 cm x .5 cm to .1 cm x .1 cm prese nt over rt buttock. All injuries covered by reddish brown colour scab. Age of injury approx 48 to 72 hours. 11. According to him, from the medical examination report, it would appear t hat the victim would be aged about 25 years and that there was no evidence of re cent sexual intercourse and that she was accustomed to sex. In his cross examina tion, he had also indicated that the injuries, as was noticed in the medical exa mination report, could also be caused by fall or by blunt impact. 12. As against the prosecution witnesses, D.W.1, who is known to both the co mplainant and the accused, stated that both of them are residing in the same ne ighbourhood and that one day, P.W.1 went to his place and told him in presence of his wife that the accused had outraged her modesty after taking her away from a rickshaw that she was riding in. He also deposed that subsequently, he had en quired about the same from the accused, who then informed him that there was no such incident and that, on the contrary, he had found P.W.1 and Rajkumar togethe r in a field, for which, he scolded them. It had also been deposed that he heard rumours later on that Rajkumar and P.W.1 were involved in indecent activities. 13. In his cross-examination, D.W.1 stated that P.W.1 had told him that she was coming in a rickshaw and she had been taken down from the rickshaw that she was travelling in and the accused had raped her by taking her to a nearby field and that he had snatched away her money. This, according to D.W.1, was told afte r one day of incident. In his cross examination, he had also stated that Monilal Rajkumar was the Head Assistant in the office of the Director of Fire Service, where he was also an employee. 14. D.W.2 stated that he had heard village people saying that Monilal Rajkum ar and Numali Hazarika (the prosecutrix) were seen walking in a place where ther e were no human habitation and, therefore, the accused had threatened them. He d id not know as to why the accused had threatened Rajkumar and Numali Hazarika. H e had also stated that he had heard that P.W.1 was abandoned by her husband and that she was living alone and that after the incident, she had left the place. In his cross examination, he indicated that Numali Hazarika used to work in the house of Rajkumar and used to sell clothes. 15. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 CrPC an d in such statement, the accused denied complicity in the offences alleged again st him. According to him, he had found Rajkumar and Numali Hazarika on the night of alleged occurrence around 7-30 P.M. in an intimate position in a field near Hengrabari bridge. He had informed the villagers about the same. Subsequent ther eto, Numali and Rajkumar had left the said place and he came to know about the p resent case when he was arrested after 15/20 days of the incident. 16. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence on record, the learned trial Cour t found the charge under Section 376 IPC well established and, accordingly, had convicted and sentenced the accused, as noted in the earlier part of the judgmen t. The learned trial Court, at the same time, held that the prosecution was unab le to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt so far as the charge under Sections 379/506 IPC are concerned and, accordingly, the accused was acquitted of the af oresaid charge. 17. I have heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. B.S.Sinha, lea rned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 18. Mr. Bora, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the prosecution has miserab ly failed to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The re is no plausible explanation as to why the ejahar was lodged after two days of the incident. Having regard to the materials and evidence on record, he submits that, it would appear that the case was filed against the accused appellant onl y as he was a witness to the P.W.1 and Monilal Rajkumar being found in a comprom ising position. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that the learned trial Court committed manifes t error of law in convicting the accused appellant, on the basis of the evidence of the prosecutrix alone and, therefore, he contends that the prosecution havin g failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accu sed is entitled to be acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC. 19. Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam has supported the impugned judgment. He submits that the conviction can be sustained only on the basis of the evidence of the prosecutrix and in the instant case, apart from the evidence of P.W.1, i.e. the prosecutrix, there is corroborating evidence of P. W.2 and P.W.3. He submits that the prosecution has adduced reliable evidence and , therefore, there is no reason as to why this Court should interfere with the f inding of conviction arrived at by the learned trial Judge. The learned Addl. Pu blic Prosecutor has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Stat e of Chhattisgarh v. Derha, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 699. On the basis of the af oresaid judgment, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor wants to fortify his submi ssion that if the Court is satisfied on the basis of the evidence of the prosecu trix, then, the conviction can be based solely upon the evidence of the prosecut rix without seeking for corroboration from other quarters. 20. Before proceeding further, it would be worthwhile to note that the evide nce of a victim of sexual assault is more or less at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. The testimony of the vi ctim in cases of sexual offences is significant and unless there are good and co mpelling reasons, which require or necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Court can act on the basis of testimony of a victim of sexual ass ault alone to convict an accused, if the testimony of the victim inspires confid ence and is found to be reliable. The Court while appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its jud icial conscience, but there is no requirement in law to insist upon corroboratio n of her evidence to base conviction of an accused. 21. Turning to the evidence on record, it is found that the alleged incident had taken place in a deserted area, where there was no people and no witnesses to the occurrence. The rickshaw puller from whose rickshaw the victim was dragge d out, was not to be found in spite of efforts made by the Investigating Officer . P.W.1 had deposed that the accused had threatened her with dire consequences. Having regard to the society in which P.W.1 lives, it would not be unnatural or wrong to assume that she needed some time to make up her mind with regard to the course of action she should adopt pursuant to the sexual assault on her. That s he had come to P.W.2 and P.W.3 has not been discredited by the defence. It is no t a case where P.W.1 did not at any point of time did not take any body into con fidence. Though P.W.1 was abandoned by her husband, yet, she had gone to her hus band’s elder sister and her son, P.W.2 and P.W.3, respectively and had narrated the incident and took their advice as to what should be done in the circumstance s. It is also evident from the record that on the very day on which P.W.1 had g one to the residence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the ejahar came to be lodged and P.W.2 had accompanied P.W.1 to the police station. Thus, it is the considered opinio n of the Court, that delay of 2 days in lodging the ejahar, in the facts and cir cumstances of the case, cannot throw out the prosecution case. 22. The projected defence version that the instant case had been lodged beca use of the fact that allegedly the accused found P.W.1 and Monilal Rajkumar in a compromising position, does not appeal to this Court. There is nothing on rec ord to sustain such a plea, apart from the statement of the accused. It is hardl y conceivable that a woman can invite a false stigma of rape on herself and run the risk of being looked down upon by the society. The evidence of P.W.1 is foun d to be trustworthy. The defence had not been able to shake her testimony in an y manner. The injuries indicated in Ext.4 dated 24.1.2003 would also indicate th at the injuries were caused within approximately 48 to 72 hours, which would go to show that such injuries could have been caused on 21.1.2003. The Injuries No. 2 and 3 are type of injuries, which can possibly be associated with an offence o f rape. 23. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the prose cution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt f or the offence under Section 376 IPC. For the aforesaid reason, the judgment of the learned trial Court does not call for any interference. 24. The appeal is dismissed. Send back the L.C.Rs. 25. Before parting with the record, this Court records its appreciation to M r. A.M. Bora, learned counsel, who has rendered able assistance to this Court as an Amicus Curiae.