JUDGMENT 1. - The accused appellant (for short the accused) calls in question the propriety of the judgment dated October 24, 1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Neem Ka Thana (Sikar) whereby the accused in Sessions Case No. 7/97, was convicted and sentenced under section 376 IPC to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment). 2. The facts necessary to unfold the controversy involved in the case, briefly stated are that Nathu Ram (PW 3) instituted written FIR (Ex.R 1) with the Police Station Khandela (Sikar) in the intervening night of September 3 and September 4, 1996 at about 00.30 a.m. with the averments that on Sept. 3, 1996 when his wife Basanti was in the forest area alongwith cattle, she was raped at about 6.00 p.m. by Iqrammuddin (accused). Hearing her hue and cry Kalu and Jhabar (PW 4) reached at the spot. His wife Basanti sustained injuries and one of her gold ornament has been taken away by the accused. Case under section 376 and 379 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Charge sheet was filed after completion of the investigation and the case was committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge Neem Ka Thana. The accused denied the charge framed against him under section 376 IPC and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Thereafter statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded that the witnesses had enmity with him. He had a quarrel with Bodu who is father in law of Basanti who is lady of loose character (Badmash Aurat). Amir (DW 1) was produced by the accused as a defence witness. Learned trial court after hearing the arguments convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. 3. Mr. Reshma Bharagava, learned counsel appearing for the accused assailed the finding of the learned trial court, raising various pleas which may be summarised thus- (a) Delay of seven hours in lodging FIR not explained. (b) Somnath constable who allegedly carried packets A, C, D, FG vide letter dated November 19, 1996 was not examined. (c) Endorsement over Ex.R 11, Ex.P 12 and Ex.P 13 does not bear signatures of Maikhana incharge. (d) 'Nallah' where the prosecutrix was raped, was not shown in site plan (Ex.P 3). (b) Somnath constable who allegedly carried packets A, C, D, FG vide letter dated November 19, 1996 was not examined. (c) Endorsement over Ex.R 11, Ex.P 12 and Ex.P 13 does not bear signatures of Maikhana incharge. (d) 'Nallah' where the prosecutrix was raped, was not shown in site plan (Ex.P 3). (e) The prosecution has not proved that semen' detected on lahanga or in vaginal swab and smear, was of the same group as that of accused. (f) There are improvements and material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and they could not have been relied upon. (g) Kalu, Somnath and father in law of Basanti could have been the best witnesses but they were withheld. (h) Statement of defence witnesses Amir Ali (DW 1) was not considered. (i) The trial court disbelieved the statement of Basanti with regard to theft of ornament by the accused, therefore her statement with regard to rape also ought to be disbelieved in view of doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. 4. At the end, on the totality of the conspectus of evidence, Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel urged that the learned trial court committed serious error in convicting the accused. Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncement which I shall deal in the latter part of the judgment. 5. On the other hand, Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Anoop Chand Dhand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and vociferously contended that the prosecution has explained the delay in instituting FIR. Husband of prosecutrix Nathu (PW 3) had gone out at the time of incident when he returned he was informed by the prosecutrix about the incident. Police Station situated at a distance of about 4 kms. therefore after discussions he made up his mind and lodged report. Sept. 5, 1996 was holiday of Janmashtmi then the FIR was received in the court on Sept. 6,1991. It was further contended that statement of prosecutrix Basanti (PW 2) has been fully corroborated by Jhabar (PW 4). Since Jhabar was examined, it was not necessary to produce Kalu. Statement of Basanti could not be shattered in the cross-examination. Slight contradiction and marginal difference in Medical report do not render the prosecution case unbelievable. The authorities cited by the learned counsel shall be discussed at appropriate juncture. 6. Since Jhabar was examined, it was not necessary to produce Kalu. Statement of Basanti could not be shattered in the cross-examination. Slight contradiction and marginal difference in Medical report do not render the prosecution case unbelievable. The authorities cited by the learned counsel shall be discussed at appropriate juncture. 6. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 7. I shall now scrutinise the statement of prosecutrix Basanti (PW 2). She deposed that when she was dislodging the grass near 'there' the accused Iqram came from the back and took her in his arms, then pushed her on the ground and put off his 'lungi and underwear', thereafter placed her skirt up and pushed his male organ into her vagina forcibly. She requested him with the folded hands not to play with her honour and prestige but he did not agree. Kalu and Jhabar after hearing her hue and cry came there running. The accused on seeing them, proceeded to leave but at the same time he removed 'Jolya' from her neck. She sustained injuries on right middle finger back hand, head and other places. Kalu and Jhabar took her to the house when her husband came at 11.00 p.m., she narrated the whole story. They went to police station and lodged the report. The bangles which were broken at the time of incident and hair of Basanti were seized by the police. Her clothes were also recovered and seized. 8. Jhabar (PW 4) stated that after hearing hue and cry he went to the place of incident where he saw Basanti and Iqram who was running while tying his underwear and with lungi on his shoulder. On being asked Basanti told him that Iqram committed 'bad act' with her and fled. In his presence the police had seized the pieces of broken bangles and hair. 9. Dr. Hari Ram Dangi (PW 5) medically examined Basanti in the presence of Smt. Mothi Markos on September 4, 1996 at 1.20 a.m. following injuries were found on her body- (i) Abrasions-4 in number 2 on each elbow size 0.5 cm. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. to 1.5 cm. (ii) Bruise Redish colour 3 cm. x 2 cm. just below right knee. (iii) Bruise 3 cm. x 2 cm. right side fore head redish. Duration of the injuries was 24 hrs. at the time of examination. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. to 1.5 cm. (ii) Bruise Redish colour 3 cm. x 2 cm. just below right knee. (iii) Bruise 3 cm. x 2 cm. right side fore head redish. Duration of the injuries was 24 hrs. at the time of examination. In the opinion of Doctor, Basanti was accustomed of sexual intercourse. 1 For evidence of recent sexual intercourse swab collected, smear prepared sealed and sent to FSL Jaipur. Pubic hair also collected sealed and sent to FSL. Medical report of Basanti was marked as Ex.R 9. 10. Accused Iqurammuddin was also medically examined. His medical 5 report was exhibited as Ex.P 10. Abrasions on his lower lip, below right knee and other parts of his body were found. In the opinion of Doctor accused was capable of doing intercourse. 11. F.S.L. Report was exhibited as Ex.R 18. According to FSL report packets five in number marked as A.C.D. F & G were properly sealed bearing 1' impressions which tallied with specimen seal impression forwarded. 'Lahanga' of Basanti was marked as Ex.No. 3 and was kept in packet 'A'. Vaginal swab of Basanti was marked as Ex.No. 7 and was kept in Packet G . Similarly 'Vaginal smear' of Basanti was marked Ex.No. 8 and was also kept in Packet 'G'. 12. Result of examination of the FSL report reveals that 'Human semen 1 was detected in Ex.No. 3 (from packed mark 'A') 7 & 8 (from G). Thus from the FSL report it is established that 'Human semen' was found on Lahanga', 'Vaginal swab' and 'vaginal smear' of prosecutrix Basanti. 13. Contention of Mr. Resham Bhargava learned counsel that possibility of the semen stains found on Lahanga, vaginal swab and vaginal smear of 2 prosecutrix Basanti, being of her husband Nathu Ram (PW 3) cannot be ruled out as the prosecution has failed to prove that semen detected was of the same group as that of the accused, has to be appreciated after clearing the ground on the question whether the prosecutrix had a sufficiently strong motive to falsely involve the accused. 2 14. 2 14. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirji Bhai v. State of Gujrat, { (1983) 3 SCC 217 } their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated (at page 225-226 para 10)- "Without the fear of making too wide a statement, or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or woman in India make false ; allegations of sexual assault The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated and unsophisticated society only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because (1) a girl or a woman in the ; tradition based non-permissible society of India, would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had even occurred. (2) She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. (3) She would have to brave the whole world. (4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5) If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. (6) It would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself. (7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her. (8) She would feel extremely embraced in relating the incident to others being overpowered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society where by the large sex is toboo. (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husband's family of a married woman, would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence. (12) The reluctance to face interrogation by the investigating agency, to face the court, to face the cross examination by counsel for the culprit, and the risk of being disbelieved, acts as a deterrent,' In the statement under section 313 Cr.RC., the accused stated that Basanti is a 'Badmash Aurat' (A lady of loose character). He had a quarrel with Bodu, the father in law of Basanti that is why the witnesses depose against him. Defence witness Ameer (DW 1) averred in his statement he did not ever see Basanti grazing cattle. Her father in law Bodu grazs cattle. Bansati did not ever visit 'Goel Dunyri'. Iqram had a quarrel with Bodu.It is now to be seen as to whether the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the accused on account of his enmity with her father in law Bodu and what is the effect of infirmities as suggested by the learned counsel for the accused, on the prosecution case.After drawing my attention towards the relevant pages of Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology by John Glaister and Edgar Rentoul and by Dr. C.K. Parikh, learned counsel for the accused urged that liberty of the accused cannot be defaced for want of test of blood group of seminal stains, in the instant case no test to determine blood group of seminal stains was conducted. For want of such test no link is established that the seminal stains found on 'Lahanga' vaginal swab ad vaginal smear of the prosecutrix were that of accused. Prosecutrix, who is a married lady with four children, therefore it was possible that she got stains of semen by the coition with her husband. Reliance was placed on State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash ( 1990 (1) SCC 550 ) , Mithu v. State (1996 (1) RCC 76) , Rahim Beg v. State of U.P. ( 1972 (3) SCC 759 ) and Jagan Nath v. State (1952 RLW 128) . 15. It was next contended that the persons to whom entire episode was narrated in detail like father in law Bodu and ladies of neighbourhood, were not examined, therefore presumption arises that they would not have supported the prosecution case. 16. 15. It was next contended that the persons to whom entire episode was narrated in detail like father in law Bodu and ladies of neighbourhood, were not examined, therefore presumption arises that they would not have supported the prosecution case. 16. Learned counsel then added by contending that allegation of theft and rape was levelled against the accused by the prosecutrix but her contention in respect of theft was not believed therefore benefit of "Falsus in uno. falsus in omnibus" ought to be extended to the accused. Reliance was placed on Mangi Ram v. State (1995 (2) RLW 454) . 17. Next plank of contentions of learned counsel is that no evidence of any resistence by the prosecutrix is on record and in view of her unnatural conduct the prosecutrix should not be believed. The evidence of the prosecutrix does not find corroboration from medical evidence. Dr. Hari Ram (PW 5) neither in his report nor in his statement has given any definite opinion about rape. He only endorsed the FSL Report. Unnatural conduct of Bodu (father in law) brothers in law and neighbours, casts doubt in the prosecution story. Therefore delay in lodging FIR should be viewed strictly Reliance was placed on Taju Khan v. State (1989 Cr.L.R. 147) Sita Ram v. State (1909 (1) RLR 828) , Pratap Mishra v. State, ( 1977 (3) SCC 41 ) . 18. In order to appreciate the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, a close look at the statement of prosecutrix is necessary. She deposed that the accused removed 'Jolya' (an ornament) from her neck and squeezed her night middle finger by his teeth., but no injury on her right middle finger was found in the medical examination. She was confronted witn her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.RC. (Ex.D. 1). Following facts which she narrated before the trial court are missing in the statement Ex.D. 1 - (i) That Kalu and Jhabar took her to the house. (ii) That the bangles were broken and lying at the spot. (iii) That the accused gagged her mouth and tied her hands with 'guliband'. (iv) That the accused squeezed her right middle finger by his teeth. (v) That she requested the accused with the folded hands not to play with her honour and prestige. (ii) That the bangles were broken and lying at the spot. (iii) That the accused gagged her mouth and tied her hands with 'guliband'. (iv) That the accused squeezed her right middle finger by his teeth. (v) That she requested the accused with the folded hands not to play with her honour and prestige. According to learned counsel there are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix and she can not be relied upon in view of maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'. 19. This Court (Hon'ble V.G. Palshikar J.) in Mangi Ram v. State of Raj. (supra) indicated thus (Para 5) "The witnesses are disbelieved in so far as they depose to snatching of ear-rings by the accused but have been believed in so far as the rape is concerned. In my opinion, in such situation, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one. false in all), is liable to be applied in the present case. The witnesses have been found to have stated falsely that Krishnalal was involved in holding the hands of the prosecutrix and gagging her mouth. The witnesses have stated falsely that the accused committed robbery by snatching the ear-rings of the prosecutrix and consequently their statement that the accused committed rape is also likely to be false." 20. But in another case, State of Rajasthan v. Chathu Ram (supra) this court (Hon'ble A.K. Singh, J.) observed thus - (Para 27) - "The second mistake committed by the learned Sessions Judge is that he has not appreciated his duty to separate the truth from the falsehood. It is well established that the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" does not apply in our country. The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded on the ground that some portion of the statement of the witness is false. It is the duty of the court to find out which portion of the statement of the witness is true and which portion of the witness is false. It is only in those cases, where in spite of pains having been taken by the court, it is not possible to separate the truth from the falsehood that the entire statement may be rejected." 21. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others (1996 Cr.LR. It is only in those cases, where in spite of pains having been taken by the court, it is not possible to separate the truth from the falsehood that the entire statement may be rejected." 21. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others (1996 Cr.LR. (SC) 86) propounded thus-(Para 21) "A victim of rape, it must be remembered, has already undergone a traumatic experience and if she is made to repeat again and again in unfamiliar surroundings, what she had been subjected to she may be too shamed and even nervous or confused to speak and her silence or a confused stray sentence may be wrongly interpreted as "discrepancies and contradiction" in her evidence. 22. In State of A.P. v. Ganguli Satya Murthi ( 1997 (1) SCC 272 ) it was laid down that - (Para 27) "The courts are expected to show great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses which are not of fatal nature to throw out allegations of rape.' 23. In the case on hand the statement of the prosecutrix that she was raped by the accused could not be shattered in the cross examination. The contradictions as earlier noticed are minor in nature. If she had not stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.PC. that Kalu and Jhabar took her to the home or the bangles were broken and lying at the spot or the accused gagged her mouth and tied her hands with 'guliband' or the accused squeezed her fingers or she requested the accused with folded hands. It hardly shatters her testimony in respect of allegations of rape. Major part of her statement is corroborated by medical testimony and the statement of Jhabar (PW 4). She stated before the Investigating Officer that accused removed 'Jolya' from her neck but the learned trial court did not frame charge under section 379 IPC. The charge sheet was filed only under section 376 IPC and charge was also framed under the said section. I have also perused the statement of prosecutrix (Ex.D. 1) recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.PC. The charge sheet was filed only under section 376 IPC and charge was also framed under the said section. I have also perused the statement of prosecutrix (Ex.D. 1) recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.PC. In the said statement the prosecutrix deposed that the accused removed Jolya from her neck and carried it with him. She also stated that her mouth was gagged by the accused and her bangle was broken and she sustained injuries but it appears that the trial court recorded her cross examination without looking at her statement (Ex.D. 1). Thus discrepancies as suggested by the learned counsel for the accused are insignificant and the testimony of prosecutrix Basanti inspires confidence. 24. In Madan Lal v. State of J & K ( 1997 (7) SCC 677 ) it was indicated in para 13, thus- "Then again the salwar of the prosecutrix was seized and had been sent to the chemical examiner for chemical analysis and the scientific officer of the J & K F.S.L. after examining the said salwar reported that chemical and microscopical tests revealed the presence of semen/human spermatozoa on the said salwar. This is also a strong corroborative piece of evidence to the prosecutrix's version even if it has not been established that the human spermatozoa was that of the accused." 25. In the case on had no doubt that the test of blood group of semen stains of the accused was not performed but seminal stains found on 'Lahanga' vaginal swab and 'vaginal smear' of the prosecutrix shall be treated a strong corroborative evidence. The case of Mithu v. State (1996 (1) RCC 76) cited by the learned counsel for the accused is distinguishable. In that case prosecutrix Badam, a married lady, had deposed that she changes her clothes in 3 to 4 days. Under those circumstances this court held that "the possibility that she got stains by the coition with her husband cannot be ruled out." But in the case on hand 'Lahanga' of prosecutrix Bansati was seized on September 4, 1996 by the Investigating Officer and she has not stated that she was wearing said Lahanga for the last 3-4 days. She was not asked a single question about her 'Lahanga'. Ratio of State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash, ( 1990 (1) SCC 550 ) is no applicable in the instant case. She was not asked a single question about her 'Lahanga'. Ratio of State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash, ( 1990 (1) SCC 550 ) is no applicable in the instant case. In that case test of blood group of seminal stains of the accused was performed. 26. Delay of seven hours in lodging FIR is not fatal. The husband of the prosecutrix came to his house on September 3. 1996 late in the night The Police Station Khandala was about 4 km. away and the. report was lodged at 00.30 a.m. in the intervening night of Sept. 3 and 4. 1996. Other arguments raised by learned counsel in respect of non production of witnesses, site plan and defence witness are also of no help to the accused. Amir Ali (DW 1) deposed that Bodu, the father in law of the prosecutrix had enmity with the accused and because of this reason he was falsely implicated. The accused also repeated this version in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC. He also charged the prosecutrix as a woman of loose character. I am unable to accept this absurd defence version. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh and others v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1987 SC 1080 ) observed that- "To suggest that because of enmity of the father of the prosecutrix against the accused, the accused had been falsely implicated is an absurdity." 27. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others (supra) the Supreme Court laid down thus - (Para 11) "Again, if the accused could be falsely involved on account of that enmity, it was equally possible that the accused could have sexually assaulted the prosecutrix to take revenge from her father for after all enmity is a double edged weapon which may be used for false implication as well as to take revenge." 28. As a result of the aforesaid discussion. I find that the prosecutrix Basanti has made a truthful statement which is corroborated by medical testimony. FSL report and the statement of Jhabar (PW 4). The prosecution has established the charge under section 376 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 29. Resultantly the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing accused, stands confirmed. Record be sent back forthwith.Appeal is dismissed. *******