[2008) 15 S.C.R. 1058

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH +

PREM SINGH (Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2002}

NOVEMBER 11, 2008

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM

SHARMA, JJ.]

-'-~ ' Penal Code, 1860: ss'.376, 354 and 506 - Conviction c under, by trial Court- High Court ordered acquittal on ground ... of inordinate. delay in lodging FIR - Challenged - Held: t-

Delay in cases of sexual assault not fatal to prosecution

case, since several factors weigh in the mind of prosecutrix r

and her family members before coming to police station to I D lodge a complaint - On facts, prosecution established

I ,_.i commission of offence under ss.354 and 506 - Acquittal for these offences not correct - Case of rape not established, hence, order of acquittal under S;376 is correct - Crime against women.

E Prosecution case was that respondent-accused sexually ravished PW-1 and outraged the modesty of not only PW-1 but of several other girl students of the school where he was teacher. Respondent was also charged for commission of offences relating to threatening the

..,.....

I prosecutrix with dire consequences in case she

.._ ,. disclosed the incident to any one. The trial Court convicted the respondent under ss.376, 354 and 506 IPC. .

On appeal, High Court held that there was inordinate G delay in lodging FIR and directed acquittal. Hence the present appeal. ,.. ,.>..

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

H 1058

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. PREM SINGH 1059

HELD: The delay in case of sexual assault, cannot A be equated with the case involving other offences. There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lod'1e a complaint. In a tradition bound society prevalent in India, more particularly, rural areas, B it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR. The High Court has lost sight of this vital distinction. Additionally, the prosecution clearly established commission of offence punishable under c ss.354 and 506 IPC. So far as the offence punishable under s.376 IPC is concerned, the basic ingredients are set out in s.375 IPC. On a reading of the evidence of the prosecutrix, a case of rape has not been established. [Para 6] [1061-A-B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2002.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 10.5.2001 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Crl. Appeal No.

E 318 of 1998.

Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant.

Ravi Bakshi and Yash Pal Dhingra for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant- State and learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred as to as the 'accused').

2. On the allegation that the respondent had sexually ravished PW- 1 and had outraged the modesty of not only P

W- 1, but of several other girl students of the school where the respondent was a teacher, law was set in motion. The respondent was .further charged for commission of offences H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 15 S.C.R.

A relating to threatening the prosecutrix with dire consequences in case she disclosed the incident to somebody else.· The accused faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 37 6 , 35 4 and 50 6 of the Indian Pen al Code, 18 6 0 (in short

. B

. 'the.I PC') .

. 3. The learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh found the accused guilty of all the offences, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprison ment for ten years', six months' and six months' respectively; In appeal, the High Court C set side the.judgment of conviction and sentence and directed

acquittal of the .respondent.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State subrnitted that the reasons indicated by the High Court are indefensible. The High Court has treated delay D in lodging the FIR in a case involving rape, to be similar to that

involving other offences. Additionally, it was submitted that the evidence of PW- 1, the prosecutrix has been lightly brushed aside. - ·· · .

5. In response, learned'counsel for the respondentaccused submitted that not only there was inordinate delay in . lodging the FIR, but also, the fact that the prosecutrix claimed

to have told her mother and a teacher about the alleged ·

incident at_the first instance and, thereafter, there was total silence of nearly two years, casts doubt on the authenticity of .

F the prosecution version. In any event, it is submitted, that the

offence punishable under Section ·-; 6 I PC is not made out.

6. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR question is concerned, the delay in a case of sexual assault; cannot be G eq.uated with the case involving otheroffences. There are

several factors which weigh in the mind ofttie prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint. ln .. a tradition bound society prevalent in India: more particularly, rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out .

H the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. PREM SINGH 1061

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

delay in lodging the Fl R .. In that score, learned counsel for the A appellant is right that the High Court has lost sight of this vital distinction. Additionally, we find that the prosecution has clearly established commission of offence punishable under Sections 35 4 and 5 0 6 I PC. So far as the offence punishable under Section 3 7 6 I PC is concerned, the basic ingredients are set B out in Section 37 5 I PC. On a reading of the evidence of the prosecutrix, we find that a case of rape has not been established so far as the respondent is concerned.

7. That being the position, we allow the appeal of the State C to the extent that the respondent is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 3 5 4 and 5 0 6 I PC. The sentences are two years' and six months' rigorous imprison ment respectively. It is stated that the appellant has. suffered more than that period of custody. If that being so, he need not ' surrender to custody,. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid . D extent.

D.G.

Appeal partly allowed.