Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 183 (KAR)

H. CHANDRAKANTH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2002-03-06

V.G.SABHAHIT

body2002
( 1 ) THIS appeal by the accused in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1991 is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional sessions Judge, Chitradurga, dated 6-12-1995 wherein the accused-appellant have been found guilty of offence for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 450, 323 and 376 read with section 34 of the IPC, and have been sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo further RI for three months for the offence punishable under Section 450 read with section 34, IPC, and to undergo SI for two months for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to undergo RI for six months. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief leading upto this appeal are as follows:the accused herein stood charged before the learned Additional sessions Judge, Chitradurga, on the accusation that on 6-7-1989 at about 8 p. m. the accused 1 and 2 with the intention to commit rape on the complainant-Vijayalakshmi trespassed into the house of the complainant situated at Vedavathinagar, Hiriyur, in furtherance of the common intention assaulted the complainant with hands and caused her simple injuries and further both the accused committed rape forcibly one after another on the complainant without the consent of the complainant vijayalakshmi (P. W. 1 ). ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 10 and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 10 and m. O. 1. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. The defence of the accused as suggested to the prosecutrix is that she was not raped by the accused and a false complaint has been foisted against the accused by the Police. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. P. C. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. The defence of the accused as suggested to the prosecutrix is that she was not raped by the accused and a false complaint has been foisted against the accused by the Police. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 6-12-1995 held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused 1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 450, 323 and 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and sentenced them to imprisonment and fine as stated above. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the contentions urged, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are: (1) Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in holding that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 6-7-1989 at about 8 p. m. accused 1 and 2 with an intention to commit rape on the complainant, trespassed into the house of the complainant situated at Vedavathinagar and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 450 read with section 34 of the IPC? (2) Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in holding that on the above said time, place and date the accused in furtherance of the common intention having trespassed into the house of P. W. 1 assaulted the complainant and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC? (3) Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in holding that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date 6-7-1989 and place between 10 p. m. to 11 p. m. the accused committed rape on the complainant, P. W. 1 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC? (4) Whether the order of sentence passed by the learned sessions Judge calls for interference in this appeal? (4) Whether the order of sentence passed by the learned sessions Judge calls for interference in this appeal? and I answer the above points as follows: point No. (1): In the affirmative; point No. (2): In the affirmative; point No. (3): In the affirmative; point No. (4): In the negative for the following reasons: ( 8 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 6-7-1989 at about 8 p. m. when the complainant, P. W. 1 and her sister Lalitha, P. W. 2 were in the house alone at Vedavathinagar which belongs to P. W. 5, the accused trespassed into the said house with an intention to commit rape on P. W. 1; assaulted and caused injury to the prosecutrix and committed rape on her and thereby committed the offences alleged against the accused. The prosecution is relying upon the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 10 and M. O. 1 to bring home the guilt of the accused. ( 9 ) P. W. 1 is the prosecutrix. P. W. 2 is her sister Lalitha. P. W. 3 is the medical Officer who examined the prosecutrix on 7-7-1989 at about 12-45 p. m. and issued the certificate as per Exs. P. 3 and P. 4. P. W. 4 is the medical Officer who examined accused 1 on 12-7-1989 and issued certificate as per Ex. P. 6 and also examined accused 2 and issued certificate as per Ex. P. 5. P. W. 5 according to the prosecution is the owner of the house and according to the prosecution the house had been given on rent to the complainant and her husband. P. W. 6 according to the prosecution is an eye-witness to the incident. P. W. 7 is the Principal of the Junior college who has issued the extract of admission register in respect of the prosecutrix as per Ex. P. 9 which shows that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 1-7-1970. P. W. 8 is the Police Constable who took the articles to Forensic Laboratory and P. W. 9 is the Pancha for the scene of offence, Panchanama and seizure of M. O. 1. P. W. 10 is the Investigation officer who conducted the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the accused. Among the above ,said witnesses, P. Ws. P. W. 8 is the Police Constable who took the articles to Forensic Laboratory and P. W. 9 is the Pancha for the scene of offence, Panchanama and seizure of M. O. 1. P. W. 10 is the Investigation officer who conducted the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the accused. Among the above ,said witnesses, P. Ws. 5, 6 and 9 have turned hostile to the prosecution and have not supported the case of the prosecution and wherefore, the prosecution is left with the evidence of the prosecutrix, P. W. 1, P. W. 2-sister of the prosecutrix, Medical Officers, p. Ws. 3 and 4 and the Investigation Officer, P. W. 10. ( 10 ) IT is necessary to bear in mind the principles laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the appreciation of the evidence of the prosecutrix in rape cases and the burden of proof required to be discharged by the prosecution in such cases. In the case of State of Himachal pradesh v Lekh Raj and Another, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows: "if the prosecutrix is believed to be a truthful witness in her deposition, no further corroboration may be insisted. Corroboration is admittedly only a rule of prudence. This Court in state of Punjab v Gurmit Singh, took note of the existing rate of crime against women and held:"21. Of late, crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault - it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The Courts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The Courts, therefore, shoulder a 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 prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the Trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations". Referring to an earlier judgment in State of Maharashtra v chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, this Court in Gurmit Singh's case, supra, held:"the Courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. 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. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable. In Chandraprakash kewalchand Jain's case, supra, Ahmadi, J. (as the Lord Chief Justice then was) speaking for the Bench summarised the position in the following words: "a prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Indian evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Indian evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which required it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But 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 of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case 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". We are in respectful agreement with the above exposition of law. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case 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". We are in respectful agreement with the above exposition of law. In the instant case our careful analysis of the statement of the prosecutrix has created an impression on our minds that she is a reliable and truthful witness. Her testimony suffers from no infirmity or blemish whatsoever. We have no hesitation in acting upon her testimony alone without looking for any 'corroboration'. However, in this case there is ample corroboration available on the record to lend further credence to the testimony of the prosecutrix". ( 11 ) IN the case of State of Rajasthan v N. K. , Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding appreciation of evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case and has observed as follows:"if the prosecution has succeeded in making out a convincing case of recording a finding as to the accused being guilty, the Court should not lean in favour of acquittal by giving weight to irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or by resorting to technicalities or by assuming doubts and giving benefit thereof where none exists. A doubt, as understood in criminal jurisprudence, has to be a reasonable doubt and not an excuse for a finding in favour of acquittal. An unmerited acquittal encourages wolves in the society being on the prowl for each prey, more so when the victims of crime are helpless females. The Courts have to display a greater sense of responsibility and to be more sensitive while dealing with charges of sexual assault on women. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v State of gujarat, this Court observed, that refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. This Court deprecated viewing evidence of such victim with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinted with doubt, disbelief or suspicion. We need only remind ourselves of what this Court has said through one of us (Dr. This Court deprecated viewing evidence of such victim with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinted with doubt, disbelief or suspicion. We need only remind ourselves of what this Court has said through one of us (Dr. A. S. Anand, J. as his Lordship then was) in Gumit Singh's case, supra: "a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault-it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The Courts, therefore, shoulder a 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 prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case". It is well-settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject-matter being a criminal charge. However, if the Court of facts may find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. Reference may be had to a long chain of decisions, some of which are rameshwar v State of Rajasthan, Sidheswar Ganguly v State of west Bengal, Madho Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh , chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain's case, supra, Madan Gopal kakkad v Naval Dubey5, State of Rajasthan v Narayan, Karnel singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, Bodhisattwa Gautam v Miss subhra Chakraborty and Gurmit Singh's case, supra. We may quote from the last of the above said decisions where the rule for appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix in such cases has been succinctly summed up in the following words:"if evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the Trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations". ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjan v State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows:"p. W. 1-Sewawati informed the police on 29-8-1985 that ten days prior to that date she was caught hold of by six persons including the appellants and all of them committed rape on her one by one. The version of P. W. 1 was accepted by the Trial Court and the high Court by assuming that a lady like P. W. 1 had no reason to falsely implicate the six persons for rape. The aforesaid arguments adopted by the High Court is a fragile one on the fact situation in this case. We are not laying down a proposition of law that the uncorroborative testimony of the prosecutrix is not sufficient for entering conviction for an offence under Section 376 of the IPC. But then the evidence of the solitary witness should inspire confidence in the judicial mind and be of such a nature that the Court must be able to certify that the testimony is wholly reliable". "here is a prosecutrix who has married twice and was deserted by her husbands claimed that while she was proceeding alone in the dark on the night of occurrence through an open field, the sky was overcast and was drizzling in full swing, she was caught hold of by six persons who one by one committed rape on her. "here is a prosecutrix who has married twice and was deserted by her husbands claimed that while she was proceeding alone in the dark on the night of occurrence through an open field, the sky was overcast and was drizzling in full swing, she was caught hold of by six persons who one by one committed rape on her. She has not chosen to divulge this to anyone on the said night in spite of the fact that she could reach home and her mother confronted her for coming late. She did not divulge it to her mother or anybody else on the second or even on the third day. It appears that she was subjected to medical examination. But the prosecution thought it fit not to show the result of the medical examination before the Court. We are not told why the result of such medical examination was not brought in evidence". ( 13 ) THE evidence adduced by the prosecution in the present case has to be considered in the light of the principles laid down in the above cited cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to find out as to whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in holding that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 450, 323 and 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC. P. W. 1, the prosecutrix has stated in her evidence that herself, her mother and two brothers were residing in Vedavathinagar in the house of Papajji on rental basis. Her brothers, Mohan and Jalendra were working in hotels and about 6 years back prior to her evidence at about 8 p. m. she was in her house, at that time her sister Lalitha was also there. Her mother had gone to Jagalur and her brothers had gone to the hotels for work and there was a kerosene lamp burning in the house and also the streetlights were burning, at that time she was washing her hands in order to take meals. At that time, both the accused were sitting on the Katta in front of her house. At that time, both the accused were sitting on the Katta in front of her house. When she sat for taking food after washing her hands, at that time accused 1-Chandrakanth came inside the house and asked her where is her brother thief, and to that she told that her brother is not a thief, he is working in the hotel and thereafter when the accused 1 was asking her in her house, accused 2 also entered the house and thereafter both of them dragged her outside the house holding her hairs and also beat her with hands on her head, hand and also to eyes and neck. Hearing the galata, the neighbourers assembled there and also asked the accused why they are beating her and then the accused told that they want her and therefore they are beating her and also they asked the people who were assembled, if the ladies were there they must come to them and if the male persons are there they should give their wives to them, and therefore, all the gathered persons went inside their houses and thereafter accused 1 dragged her inside the house and closed the door. P. W. 1 has further stated that when the accused were beating complainant, her sister Lalitha due to fear ran outside the house and then accused 1 after closing the door he made her to lie on the ground and she tried to escape from him but he did not leave and then accused 1 after placing his foot on her chest removed saree, jacket and langa and then he forcibly raped her and after satisfying himself when the accused 2 tapped the door, went outside the house after wearing the clothes and accused 2 came inside the house. Accused 2 also made her to lie on the ground and he removed all his clothes and also raped her even though she begged him not to do so and also she tried to escape from him but he did not leave her. She has further stated that she became tired and then both of them raped once again one after another. She has also stated that accused 1 and 2 after raping her told the complainant that she should live with them and she should not go to anybody, if she does so, they will murder her. She has further stated that she became tired and then both of them raped once again one after another. She has also stated that accused 1 and 2 after raping her told the complainant that she should live with them and she should not go to anybody, if she does so, they will murder her. Then, she asked them to give some water but they did not give water but they abused and went away. After the accused went away from the house as it was night and also her mother had not returned to the house, her sister Lalitha came to the house. As the accused beat her, she sustained injuries on her eyes, neck and also as the accused 1 pulled the jacket, hooks were also removed and the semen was stained on her langa as the accused raped her forcibly. When the accused beat her, it was 8 to 9 p. m. and when they forcibly raped her, it was 10 to 11 p. m. As she was tired she slept and there were none in the house she did not go anywhere and on the next day morning she went to the Police Station at hiriyur and filed her complaint at Ex. P. 1. She has also stated that after she filed the complaint before the Police, the Police sent her to the government Hospital, Hiriyur, for examination and she was treated by the Doctors and also lady Medical Officer took langa and thereafter she went to her house and Police had come to her house and she showed the scene of offence and in her presence the scene of offence panchanama was drawn and she produced the jacket, M. O. 1 and it was seized by the police. Nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony or to show that she had any enmity to foist a false complaint against the accused. ( 14 ) P. W. 2 has stated in her evidence that they are residing in the house of Bapuji on rental basis, in her house herself, her sister were there and her mother had gone to Jagalur and her brothers had gone to hotel for work. She has also stated that about 6 years, on one day herself and her sister Vijayalakshmi were alone in the house. She has also stated that about 6 years, on one day herself and her sister Vijayalakshmi were alone in the house. At that time both the accused came to the house and caught hold of hairs of her sister and dragged her outside the house and due to the fear she ran away from the house which is situated by the side of their house and upto 11 p. m. the accused had wrongfully confined her sister and thereafter the accused went away from the house, she returned to the house. At that time, when the accused dragged her sister, the streetlights were burning and she has seen the accused beating her sister with the help of the streetlights and also with the help of the kerosene lamp inside the house. At that time, when she returned to the house, her sister was sleeping naked. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to show that she is deposing falsely or to discredit his testimony. ( 15 ) P. W. 3, the Medical Officer Dr. S. Sharadamma has stated in her evidence that on 7-7-1989 at about 12-45 p. m. PC. 974 of Hiriyur Police station brought one lady called Vijayalakshmi (P. W. 1) for treatment as well as for issuing certificate and she examined Vijayalakshmi and found on her the following injuries:1. There was red colour contusion on the left lower eyelid. 2. There was a scratch on the upper part of the left side of neck. 3. Multiple scratches on the back of left ear and ear was swollen, it was red in colour, and tenderness was present. 4. An abrasion with swelling, on the back of the head 1" x 1". 5. Pain and tenderness present on the left cheek. 6. Multiple abrasions reddish in colour on the lower part of back of right side of chest. ( 16 ) SHE has further deposed that she examined the private part of the prosecutrix and found that there was no injuries present and no stain on eye, no matting of pubic hairs present and she has further deposed as follows:"white discharge per vagina was present. Per vagina examination, vagina admits, 2 fingers easily, circular hermaneles present. ( 16 ) SHE has further deposed that she examined the private part of the prosecutrix and found that there was no injuries present and no stain on eye, no matting of pubic hairs present and she has further deposed as follows:"white discharge per vagina was present. Per vagina examination, vagina admits, 2 fingers easily, circular hermaneles present. Vagina swate agina smear pubic hairs, and petticoat sent for examination to FSL, Bangalore, and I received the FSL report and found presence of spermatozoa was detected in Item 1 (4 ). Presence of seminal stain was not detected in Items 1 (1), 1 (2), 1 (3), 2 (1), 2 (2) and 2 (3 ). I have issued the certificate, I see the same, it bears my signature, the contents of the certificate are correct, it is marked as Ex. P. 3. I have not given any opinion, because Vijayalakshmi is a married woman. After issuing Ex. P. 3 the police asked for my opinion, whether there was any intercourse and I gave my opinion on 17-10-1990. And I see the opinion given by me, the contents are correct. It bears my signature. It is marked as Ex. P. 4. As per my opinion given as per ex. P. 4, it is stated that before my examination, the intercourse had been taken place, within 8 to 12 hours". ( 17 ) SHE has further deposed that injuries 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 could be caused by beating by hands. It is elicited in the cross-examination of p. W. 3 that injuries 1 to 6 can be caused by fall on the hard surface and it is false to suggest that spermatozoa present in the vagina upto 17 days, it can be present in the vagina rarely upto 6 days and normally upto 6 to 12 hours and upto 24 hours and she did not find any injuries on examination of chest of Vijayalakshmi and she has seized the skirt of vijayalakshmi in the presence of Police on that day. ( 18 ) P. W. 4-Dr. K Thippaiah, has stated in his evidence that he examined accused 2 on 8-7-1989 at about 12. 30 p. m. and he has issued the wound certificate, Ex. P. 5 and he also examined accused 1 and issued wound certificate, Ex. P. 6 stating that they were capable of having sexual intercourse. ( 18 ) P. W. 4-Dr. K Thippaiah, has stated in his evidence that he examined accused 2 on 8-7-1989 at about 12. 30 p. m. and he has issued the wound certificate, Ex. P. 5 and he also examined accused 1 and issued wound certificate, Ex. P. 6 stating that they were capable of having sexual intercourse. Their evidence have remained uncontroverted as they have not been cross-examined by the learned Counsel appearing for the accused. ( 19 ) P. W. 7 has been examined to produce the extract of admission register of the Junior College, Chikkajogihalli, which has been produced as Ex. P. 9 and the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 1-7-1970. His evidence has also remained uncontroverted. P. W. 8 is the police Constable who has carried the articles for the forensic laboratory and he has stated accordingly in his evidence. P. W. 10 is the Investigation officer who has stated about the investigation conducted by him and the filing of the charge-sheet. ( 20 ) THE above said evidence adduced by the prosecution has to be considered in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the above cited cases. It is clear from the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2 that so far as the evidence of the prosecutrix regarding accused 1 and 2 trespassing into her house when P. W. 2 was also present there and assaulting P. W. 1, the complainant is corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 2 as she has stated in her evidence about the same and nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve her evidence regarding the same and the evidence of P. W. 3, the Medical officer and the wound certificate, Ex. P. 3 clearly shows that the injuries found on the body of the prosecutrix were caused by assaulting with hand as spoken to by P. W. 3 and the said evidence is truthful and reliable and there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P. Ws. P. 3 clearly shows that the injuries found on the body of the prosecutrix were caused by assaulting with hand as spoken to by P. W. 3 and the said evidence is truthful and reliable and there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 regarding the fact that accused 1 and 2 trespassed into the house of prosecutrix and have assaulted P. W. 1 and caused her injuries and wherefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sections 450 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and the next question is as to whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is clear from the above said evidence of the prosecutrix that the evidence of the prosecutrix is truthful and reliable and does not suffer from any infirmity or inherent improbability. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is delay in filing the complaint and the version of the incident given by the prosecution. It is clear from the evidence of P. W. 10 that the prosecutrix appeared in the Police Station and filed the complaint on 7-7-1989. It is clear from the evidence of P. W. 1 that since she was exhausted due to the sexual assault by the accused from 10 to 11 p. m. and there was no elderly person in the house, she went to the Police Station on the next day morning and filed the complaint. It has been laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court that the delay which is not unreasonable and has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix would not in any way discredit her evidence. In the above said case of N. K. , it has been held as follows: "we may however state that a mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground by itself for throwing the entire prosecution case overboard. The Court has to seek an explanation for delay and test the truthfulness and plausibility of the reason assigned. If the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court it cannot be counted against the prosecution. The Court has to seek an explanation for delay and test the truthfulness and plausibility of the reason assigned. If the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court it cannot be counted against the prosecution. In Narayan's case, supra, this court observed:"true it is that the complaint was lodged two days later but as stated earlier Indian society being what it is the victims of such a crime ordinarily consult relatives and are hesitant to approach the police since it involved the question of morality and chastity of a married woman. A woman and her relatives have to struggle with several situations before deciding to approach the police. . . . . . . . . . ". In Gurmit Singh's case, supra, this Court has held:"the Courts cannot overlook the fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged". ( 21 ) WHEREFORE, the delay which has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix for filing the complaint before the Police Station would not in any way discredit the truthfulness of the evidence of P. W. 1-prosecutrix. Similarly, mere fact that there is no injury on the private part of the body of the prosecutrix would not by itself also discredit the evidence of the prosecutrix in view of the fact that the prosecutrix is a married lady and in the above cited case of N. K. , supra, it has been held as under:"absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix has weighed with the High Court for inferring consent on the part of the prosecutrix. We are not at all convinced. We have already noticed that the delay in medical examination of the prosecutrix was occasioned by the factum of the lodging of the FIR having been delayed for the reasons which we have already discussed. The prosecutrix was in her teens. We are not at all convinced. We have already noticed that the delay in medical examination of the prosecutrix was occasioned by the factum of the lodging of the FIR having been delayed for the reasons which we have already discussed. The prosecutrix was in her teens. The perpetrator of the crime was an able bodied youth bustling with energy and determined to fulfil his lust armed with a knife in his hand and having succeeded in forcefully removing the victim to a secluded place where there was none around to help the prosecutrix in her defence. The injuries which the prosecutrix suffered or might have suffered in defending herself and offering resistance to the accused were abrasions or bruises which would heal up in the ordinary course of nature within 2 to 3 days of the incident. The absence of visible marks of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix on the date of her medical examination would not necessarily mean that she had not suffered any injuries or that she had offered no resistance at the time of commission of the crime. Absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is not necessarily an evidence of falsity of the allegation or an evidence of consent on the part of the prosecutrix. It will all depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In Sheikh Zakir v State of bihar, absence of any injuries on the person of the prosecutrix, who was the helpless victim of rape, belonging to a backward community, living in a remote area not knowing the need of rushing to a doctor after the occurrence of the incident, was held not enough for discrediting the statement of the prosecutrix if the other evidence was believable. In Balwant Singh v State of punjab, this Court held that every resistance need not necessarily be accompanied by some injury on the body of the victim; the prosecutrix being a girl of 19/20 years of age was not in the facts and circumstances of the case expected to offer such resistance as would cause injuries to her body. In Karnel Singh's case, supra, the prosecutrix was made to lie down on the pile of sand". In Karnel Singh's case, supra, the prosecutrix was made to lie down on the pile of sand". ( 22 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant nextly submitted that it is highly improbable that having regard to the evidence of p. W. 5 who has turned hostile to the prosecution and has stated that she has not given the premises on rent to the prosecutrix and her husband and the fact that it is an area wherein several persons are staying even according to the prosecution that the incident as spoken to by P. W. 1 could not have taken place at all. There is no merit in this contention also as it is clear from the evidence of P. W. 1, the prosecutrix that the accused have threatened the persons who came out of the house on seeing the accused assaulting P. W. 1 and they were all threatened by the accused as stated by P. W. 1 in her evidence and P. W. 2 has clearly corroborated the evidence of the prosecutrix insofar as it relates to the first incident of assault and trespassed to the house and assaulted the body of the prosecutrix and wherefore, there is nothing improbable in the version as spoken to by the prosecutrix and the incident that is narrated is natural, truthful and reliable. Wherefore, in the light of the above said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the evidence of the prosecutrix which is found to be truthful and reliable by the learned sessions Judge and rightly according to me in view of the above said material on record would itself constitute sufficient material to bring home the guilt of the accused and apart from the evidence of the prosecutrix in the present case, there is also the evidence of P. W. 2 to the extent of the first incident and also the fact that when he has returned to the house after accused left the house she found her sister, P. W. 1 was lying exhausted being naked and the evidence of the Medical Officer, p. W. 3 who has issued Exs. P. 3 and P. 4 would also corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix to the extent that is required to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC also and wherefore, having regard to the above said material on record, I hold that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecutrix as also the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 and the evidence of the Investigation Officer and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 323 and 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC and I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge which is clearly based upon the above said material on record produced by the prosecution which clearly proves beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution has been successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the above said offences and accordingly, I answer point Nos. (1) to (3 ). ( 23 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the accused to undergo ri for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC and to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo RI for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 450 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and to undergo SI for two months each for the offence punishable under section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 1,000/- in default to undergo RI for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 450 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and to undergo SI for two months each for the offence punishable under section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The State has not preferred any appeal being aggrieved by the quantum of sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge and having regard to the offences of which the accused have been found guilty and the circumstances under which the offence has been committed and the maximum punishment prescribed for the said offences, I hold that the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge cannot at all be said to be excessive so as to call for interference in this appeal and accordingly, I answer point No. (4) by holding that the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for interference in this appeal and is entitled to be confirmed and accordingly, I answer point No. (4) and pass the following order: the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in s. C. No. 12 of 1991, dated 6-12-1995 is confirmed. --- *** --- .