JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of conviction u/Ss. 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 7 years respectively passed by the Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 1990. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 21st of September, 1989 at about 8-9 p.m. the appellant entered into the house of the prosecutrix (PW 4). At that time, Budhi (PW 1), husband of the prosecutrix had gone to the house of Nathhi and her son Bachansingh had gone to the house of Shivrajsingh. Another young child of prosecutrix namely Mangilal PW 3, aged about 13 years, along with other children was present in the house and the prosecutrix was sleeping with her children. It is alleged that accused dragged the prosecutrix towards the field of Bajra and illegally detained her there up-to 30.9.1989 and during this period committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is further stated that Budhi PW 1 found prosecutrix lying in the fields of Koksingh Ke Pura and at that time the eyes of the prosecutrix were tied with a cloth, her both legs and hands were also tied. On inquiry, prosecutrix narrated about the incident to her husband Budhi PW 1. A report of the incident was lodged by Budhi PW 1. The police registered offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. Dr. Mrs. P. Saxena PW 2 examined her. The police prepared the spot-map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After due investigation, the challan was filed. 3. The accused-appellant abjured the guilt and contended that he was falsely implicated due to long-standing enmity between his family and the family of the complainant. 4. Prosecution examined Budhi PW 1, Dr. Mrs. P. Saxena PW 2, Mangi PW 3, prosecutrix PW 4, Ramesh PW 5, Shahid Hussain PW 6, Shivpalsingh Chouhan PW 7 in support of its case. 5. Accused-appellant did not examine any witness in defence. 6. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence on record, found that the offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC were fully established and hence convicted the accused-appellant as mentioned above. As such this appeal has been preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence. 7. 5. Accused-appellant did not examine any witness in defence. 6. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence on record, found that the offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC were fully established and hence convicted the accused-appellant as mentioned above. As such this appeal has been preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant accused has assailed the conviction and sentence of the appellant on the following grounds :- (i) that the first information report has been lodged after two days, that is on the third day after the incident; (ii) that the prosecution witnesses were inimical with the accused and their conduct is unnatural and as such their evidence should not be relied upon; (iii) that medical evidence does not corroborate the version of the prosecutrix and the manner in which the prosecutrix is alleged to have been taken away by the accused is unnatural. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the judgment and findings and contended that the accused-appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Court-below and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that is, delay in lodging the first information report has no force and the same deserves to be rejected in view of the explanation given by Budhi PW 1, lodger of the first information report Ex.P/4 itself, that he was informed by his son Bachansingh that Brindawan had taken away the prosecutrix. He then went to Kedarsingh and informed him about the incident and in the night itself villagers assembled on the culvert. Tota and Makhan were sent for searching the prosecutrix to the house of the accused. The accused was not found in the house. PW 1 Budhi then went to the house of Ramesh Pandit and informed him about the incident. Ramesh Pandit advised him not to make the report as his wife will return. It is further stated that on the next day at about 12.00 in the noon a Panchayat was convened in which Ramesh was also called. Ramesh was asked by the Panchas as to why Budhi's wife has not returned. Ramesh replied that it was beyond his capacity now. The accused also came in the Panchayat and Panchas asked him about the prosecutrix. Ramesh was asked by the Panchas as to why Budhi's wife has not returned. Ramesh replied that it was beyond his capacity now. The accused also came in the Panchayat and Panchas asked him about the prosecutrix. The accused did not give any reply and went away. Buddhi PW 1 has stated that when his wife did not return in the night also, then on third day he lodged the report. Thus, there has been sufficient explanation for lodging the first information report belatedly. The learned trial Judge has accepted the explanation. The Apex Court in case of Kamel Singh v. State of MP., AIR 1995 SC 2472 has observed as under :-- "It was said that theta was considerable delay and sufficient time for tutoring and, therefore, her evidence could not be believed. There is no merit in this contention. The submission overlooks the fact that in India women are slow and hesitant to complain of such assaults and if the prosecutrix happens to be married person she will not do anything without informing her husband. Merely because the complaint was lodged less than promptly does not raise the inference that the complaint was false. The reluctance to go to the police is because of society's attitude towards such women; it casts doubt and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathise with her. Therefore, delay in lodging complaints in such cases does not necessarily indicate that her version is false." In State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh. AIR 1996 SC 1993, the Supreme Court held that even if there is some delay in lodging FIR in respect of offence of rape, if it is properly explained and the explanation is natural in the facts and cirumstances of the case, such delay would not matter. This Court has narrated the facts and circumstances hereinabove and finds that there was sufficient explanation given by the first informant for lodging the first information report belatedly, and as such, the contention has no force and is rejected. 10. The prosecutrix PW 1 in her statement before the Court in para 1 has stated that she was sleeping in her house in a cot. Her eldest son Bachan had gone to the house of Shivraj. Her husband had gone to the house of Natthi. At that time, accused Brindawan came, caught hold of her and took her to the Bajra fields forcibly. Her eldest son Bachan had gone to the house of Shivraj. Her husband had gone to the house of Natthi. At that time, accused Brindawan came, caught hold of her and took her to the Bajra fields forcibly. Then, accused threw her on the ground, committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly. It was further stated by her that her hands were tied from behind and eyes were also tied with a piece of cloth. She has also stated that accused committed sexual intercourse with her in the night and in the next morning also. She remained there for about five days. Thereafter, she went to her maternal house. Accused used to bring her food. After five days, her husband came and untied her hands and legs. She narrated the incident to her husband in the fields of Bajra itself. 11. Mangi PW 3 is the son of prosecutrix. He was about 14 years old at the time of his statement in the trial Court. The trial Court questioned him and was satisfied that he was of mature understanding and as such examined him. In para 1, this witness has stated that on the date of incident, he, his mother, his brother and sister were sleeping in the house. His father had gone to Natthi's house and elder brother Bachan Singh had gone to Shivraj Singh's house. While he was sleeping, he heard the cries of his mother whereupon he got up and saw that his mother was being dragged by accused Brindawan. He has further stated that when he proceeded towards his mother's side, Brindawan warned him that if he would not keep quiet, he would be killed. Mangi PW 3 has become helpless and sat there. His mother was taken by Brindawan towards Bajra fields. The defence cross-examined. this witness but nothing has come in cross-examination so as to disbelieve his version as is evident from paras 3 to 5 of his evidence. 12. The evidence of the prosecutrix is corroborated with the evidence of PW 1 Buddhi and PW 3 Mangi in material particulars. Learned counsel for defence pointed out that Buddhi PW 1 in para 3 has stated that she was not sent to the doctor for examination. PW 2 Dr. P. Saxena identified her in Court pointing out identity marks written in report. This contention has no force. The prosecutrix is married lady. Learned counsel for defence pointed out that Buddhi PW 1 in para 3 has stated that she was not sent to the doctor for examination. PW 2 Dr. P. Saxena identified her in Court pointing out identity marks written in report. This contention has no force. The prosecutrix is married lady. The medical evidence has to be appreciated in that context. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash Kewalchand Jain, 1990 (1) SCC 550 has laid down that a prosecutrix of sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of crime. If a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality and not circumstances appearing on the record of the cases disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. The prosecutrix is a married lady living with her husband. She is accustomed to sexual intercourse. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not been able' to point out anything so as to discredit the statement of the prosecutrix. 13. Nothing has been placed on record so as to show that there was longstanding enmity as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Thus, the contention that there was enmity between the appellant and the prosecution witnesses has no force. 14. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others, 1996 SCC (Cr.) 316, the Supreme Court has held that :-- "Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. " In the case reported as Madanlal v. State of J&K, AIR 1998 SC 386 , the Supreme Court has expressed the same view. 15. " In the case reported as Madanlal v. State of J&K, AIR 1998 SC 386 , the Supreme Court has expressed the same view. 15. In the light of the aforementioned judgments of the Supreme Court, this Court has examined the evidence on record and found that the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable, inspires confidence, which was supported by Buddhi PW 1 and Mangi PW 3. The trial Court rightly accepted her evidence and convicted the appellant. From the evidence of the prosecutrix PW 4, Buddhi PW 1, Mangi PW 3 and Dr. P. Saxena PW 2, it was fully established that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse after kidnapping her from her house while she was sleeping. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on D.P. Mishra v. K. Sharma, AIR 1971 SC 857, Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1078 , Baldeo Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 923, Bandi Mallaiah v. State of A.P., AIR 1980 SC 1160 , Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 SC 41 , Dulichandv. State of MP. 1979 MPWN (I) 24 and Mohan v. State of MP. 1979 MPWN (I) 73. All the above cases are cited by counsel on the point of appreciation of evidence. There is no dispute with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court and by this Court with respect to appreciation of evidence. But in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Gurmit Singh's case (supra), in light of which the evidence of prosecutrix has been dealt with, the aforementioned cases are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 17. In view of what which has been discussed above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail-bonds are cancelled. He shall surrender before the C.J .M. Morena for serving the remaining part of the sentence.