1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1245/2008 State of Rajasthan Versus Imran @ Onkar And S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 980/2008 Zaul Haq Versus State of Rajasthan & Another. Date of Judgment: 18.02.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, Public Prosecutor, for the State. Mr. Anurag Sharma, for the Accused-Respondent. Mr. Akash Agarwal, for the Complainant-Petitioner. Reportable (Oral) By judgment dated 26.07.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 2, Karauli in sessions case no. 50/2008, the accused Imran @ Onkar has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 450 and 376 IPC. Aggrieved, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1245/2008 and the Complainant Zaul Haq has filed Revision Petition No. 980/2008. 2. The above appeal and the above revision petition are being disposed of by this judgment. 3. Heard learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the 2 complainant Zaul Haq and learned counsel for the accused-respondent. 4. The complainant Zaul Haq is the husband of the prosecutrix who has lodged the report Exhibit P-1. As per the report when the complainant came to his house and flashed light by his torch he heard a cry of his wife and when he went towards her room the accused Imran @ Onkar came out of the room and ran away. According to the report Sapia who is the mother of the complainant and Shabbir and Shakeel who are the brothers of the complainant were sleeping just outside the room where the prosecutrix was sleeping. 5. It appears that the prosecutrix cried only after the arrival of her husband because had she cried earlier the persons sleeping outside the room would have woken up. The prosecutrix is a healthy woman of about 22 years of age and it does not appear that she offered any resistance. I, therefore, endorse the view taken by learned trial court that it is a clear case of consent. 6. Moreover, the occurrence has taken place on 07.03.2008 whereas the report has been lodged on 09.03.2008 and thus there is a delay of two days in lodging the report. No explanation has been offered for this inordinate delay. 7. The unexplained delay and all the facts and circumstances of the case make the prosecution story extremely doubtful. 8. In view of the above discussion no interference is called for. 9. Consequently, the appeal and the revision petition stand dismissed and the impugned judgment is affirmed. (G.S. Sarraf), J. Manoj 3 Item No. S. 2&3.