Judgment ( 1. ) ACCUSED/appellant Tulsiram, by the impugned judgment and order dated september 27, 2003, passed by Special Judge, Mandla, in Special Case No. 29/2002, stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376, IPC and sentenced to R. I. for seven years. He has also been convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and sentence to R. I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1000/ -. He has further been convicted for offence punishable under section 506 (Part-II), IPC and sentence to R. I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that Choughadi (P. W. 4), chetram (P. W. 5.) and Phoolmati Bai (P. W. 3) are the husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the prosecutrix. On January 25,2002 at about 2 P. M. , prosecutrix Parwati Bai set out from her Village Khamha to cut firewood. When she was cutting firewood, the appellant is said to have caught hold of her, forcibly overthrew her and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and consent. ( 3. ) THE matter was reported by the prosecutrix to her sister-in-law phoolmati Bai and neighbour Ram Pyari (P. W. 2 ). As the husband and brother-in-law of the prosecutrix were out of station and no male member of the family was present, the matter was not reported to the police immediately. In the intervening night of 30-1-2002, when the husband of the prosecutrix returned home, the incident was narrated to him. The brother-in- law of the prosecutrix also returned home next day. The story was narrated to him and also to the villagers. On 1-2-2002 at 5 P. M. FIR of the incident was lodged by the prosecutrix at Police Station, Dindori. ( 4. ) AS the prosecutrix belong to Scheduled Caste, a crime under sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and under Section 3 (1) (xii) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered. The prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Monika Lajras (P. W. 7) who found a linear old abrasion mark on the right cheek and another curved shape abrasion mark on the right side of forehead. Dr. The prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Monika Lajras (P. W. 7) who found a linear old abrasion mark on the right cheek and another curved shape abrasion mark on the right side of forehead. Dr. Lajras could not give any definite opinion regarding rape on the prosecutrix as she was a married female and used to sexual intercourse. Vaginal smear of the prosecutrix was collected and two slides were prepared and handed over to the Constable concerned for sending the same to FSL, Sagar, for chemical analysis. Ex. P-8 is the report of Dr. Lajras. ( 5. ) APPELLANT was arrested. He was examined by Dr. Badri Prasad kale (P. W. 8 ). No injury was found on his person. He was found to be capable of sexual intercourse. The underwear which he wore at the time of incident was recovered. His semen and pubic hair were procured. Pubic hair, slides of semen and recovered underwear were handed over to the Constable concerned for sending the same to FSL, Sagar for examination. ( 6. ) THE Trial Court believed the prosecution story and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. ( 7. ) AGGRIEVED by the conviction and sentence aforesaid the appellant has filed this appeal. ( 8. ) I have heard Shri S. C. Datt, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri sidharth Datt, for the appellant and Shri R. N. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. ( 9. ) PARWATI Bai (P. W. 1) has stated that on the date of incident she set out from her village to cut firewood in the forest. When she was cutting wood, the appellant came to the spot, overthrew her and committed rape on her. When she tried to raise an alarm, appellant pressed her neck, bite on her cheek and threatened her that she would be done to death. During the incident, her bangles were also broken. After the commission of the rape appellant showed her an axe and threatened that if she will narrate the incident to any person, she will be finished. The witness has also stated that at the time of commission of sexual intercourse, appellant removed his pant and underwear which he wore. ( 10. ) PROSECUTRIX has also stated that she returned home and narrated the incident to her sister-in-law Phoolmati Bai and her neighbour Ram Pyari bai. The witness has also stated that at the time of commission of sexual intercourse, appellant removed his pant and underwear which he wore. ( 10. ) PROSECUTRIX has also stated that she returned home and narrated the incident to her sister-in-law Phoolmati Bai and her neighbour Ram Pyari bai. As her husband and brother-in-law were out of station, she could not lodge the FIR. When her husband and brother-in-law returned, she narrated the incident. The matter was also brought to the knowledge of some of the villagers. Thereafter, FIR (Ex. P-l) was lodged. ( 11. ) PHOOLMATI Bai (P. W. 3) the sister-in-law of the prosecutrix has stated that on the date of incident her sister-in-law Parwati Bai had gone to the forest to cut firewood. She returned home at about 4 P. M. and informed her that the appellant caught hold of her and committed sexual intercourse with her. ( 12. ) RAM Pyari Bai, the neighbour of the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case as a whole but has stated that Parwati Bai had informed her that the appellant had caught hold of her. ( 13. ) CHOUGHADI (P. W. 4) husband of the prosecutrix and Chetram (P. W. 5) brother-in-law of the prosecutrix have stated that on the date of incident they were out of station. When they returned home prosecutrix informed them that appellant committed rape on her and also bite on her cheek. The prosecutrix also informed them that she was threatened by the appellant. ( 14. ) BHIM Singh (P. W. 6) has stated that prosecutrix informed the village Kotwar that appellant Tulsiram committed rape on her in the forest. ( 15. ) RAJENDRA Kumar (P. W. 10) has stated that the broken bangles were recovered on the spot as per Ex. P-4. ( 16. ) THE learned Trial Judge, relying on the evidence on record, found the appellant guilty of the alleged. ( 17. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant first contended that FIR of the incident has been lodged after inordinate delay, therefore, the same should be viewed with grave suspicion. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. ( 18. ) THE contention can not be accepted. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. ( 18. ) THE contention can not be accepted. Delay in FIR itself can not be held to be a reason for rejecting evidence which is otherwise fully entitled to credit. The whole of the FIR can not be thrown out because of the delay. It is true that the incident took place on January 25,2002 and FIR was lodged in the evening of February 1,2002 but the prosecutrix has given an explanation for delay stating that on the date of incident her husband and brother-in-law (Jeth) were out of station. There was no adult male member in the family to lodge a report. It is a weighty consideration for delay. After narration of occurrence to her sister-in-law and neighbour if the prosecutrix decided to wait for return of her husband and brother-in-law, there is nothing unnatural in it. ( 19. ) SHRI Datt contended that the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix was residing in the same village. In the absence of her husband and brother-in-law, the prosecutrix could have gone to the police station alongwith her mother-in-law and lodged the report. This contention can not be accepted. Normally, the report of a rape case is not lodged without consent of the male members of the family. No male member was available in the house of the prosecutrix or in the village. There was nothing unnatural in not lodging the fir till arrival of the husband and brother-in- law of the prosecutrix. ( 20. ) WHERE the explanation given by the prosecutrix for the delay in lodging the FIR could not be considered to be untrustworthy much less could it be concluded that she had tried to rope accused falsely, the delay in itself could not result in the prosecution being thrown on the board on that score alone. ( 21. ) DELAY in filing FIR in a rape case must not be viewed with the same sensitiveness as in other cases. Delay in lodging complaints in such cases in India does not raise inference that complaint was false because of societys attitude towards such woman victims. The prosecutrix and her relatives would be reluctant in going to police. ( 21. ) DELAY in filing FIR in a rape case must not be viewed with the same sensitiveness as in other cases. Delay in lodging complaints in such cases in India does not raise inference that complaint was false because of societys attitude towards such woman victims. The prosecutrix and her relatives would be reluctant in going to police. Therefore, even if there was a delay of a day in lodging a report even after the arrival of husband and brother-in-law of the prosecutrix it can not be said to be unnatural. Therefore, mere delay in FIR would not affect the credibility of victim in the present case. ( 22. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant next contended that as per her own version prosecutrix was forcibly pulled on the hard and solid substance, but as per the evidence of doctor no injury was seen on the back or on the arm of the prosecutrix which were expected to be caused on her person. The Counsel submits that the injury found on the cheek also indicates that the appellant had an intercourse with Parwati Bai with her consent and in the heat of passion, the injuries on cheek of the prosecutrix got caused due to excess excitement. The learned Counsel submitted that normally, the prosecutrix used to go for cutting firewood with another woman but on that particular day she went quite alone reveals that the prosecutrix herself had invited the appellant to the lonely place. ( 23. ) THE contention can not be accepted. The prosecutrix has admitted that on the point of weapon sexual intercourse was committed on her. Her axe was snatched by the appellant and was thrown. She was in helpless condition. In this circumstance, where she could not resist, it can not be said that she was a consenting party. Had she been a consenting party, there was no reason for her to complain to her sister-in-law or her neighbour, therefore, it can not be said that she followed the appellant willingly to the spot and allowed him to have sexual intercourse with her. ( 24. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant and prosecutrix were seen in compromising position by Rampyari Bai, who was a neighbour of the prosecutrix, therefore, in order to save her own skin she has falsely implicated appellant Tulsiram. ( 24. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant and prosecutrix were seen in compromising position by Rampyari Bai, who was a neighbour of the prosecutrix, therefore, in order to save her own skin she has falsely implicated appellant Tulsiram. Rampyari does not say that she had seen the prosecutrix having intercourse with the appellant nor even a suggestion to this effect has been given to Rampyari. Therefore, the contention raised by learned Counsel has no water to hold. ( 25. ) IT is seldom that in rape cases, direct evidence is available beyond the evidence of the raped woman. Therefore, it is not proper to refuse to act on the sole testimony of the victim of sexual assault. Normally, no woman would come forward to make a humiliating statement against her honour of having been raped unless it was true. The testimony of victim in case of rape is vital. The Court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of the sex assault alone where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component in judicial credence. ( 26. ) IN the present case, the evidence of the prosecutrix is corroborated in crucial parts by the evidence of her sister-in-law. The evidence of the prosecutrix appears to be trustworthy. Probabilities-factor renders it worthy of credit. The alleged story of rape is satisfactorily established. It can not be said to be a case where intercourse was committed with consent of woman and only when some third party came to know about it, it was termed as rape. The prosecutrix voluntarily stated about the incident to her sister-in-law and neighbour and to her husband and brother-in-law on their arrival. The conviction of accused for the offence of rape can not be said to be improper. ( 27. ) THERE is no reason why the prosecutrix would implicate the appellant in a serious crime. The appellant had not suggested any enmity with the prosecutrix. Her evidence inspires confidence. ( 28. ) FROM her evidence not only the offence of alleged rape has been proved, but also it has been proved that appellant violently caused hurt on the cheek and forehead of the prosecutrix by teeth-bite. The evidence relating to intimidation also inspired confidence. ( 29. ) LEARNED Trial Judge has discussed the evidence in detail. ( 28. ) FROM her evidence not only the offence of alleged rape has been proved, but also it has been proved that appellant violently caused hurt on the cheek and forehead of the prosecutrix by teeth-bite. The evidence relating to intimidation also inspired confidence. ( 29. ) LEARNED Trial Judge has discussed the evidence in detail. The findings of the Trial Court are based on cogent reasons. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court on all counts. ( 30. ) SO far as sentences imposed upon the appellant are concerned, they also, under the facts and circumstances of the case, can not be said to be harsh or unjust in any manner. In the case of rape, the law requires that the accused should not to be awarded less than seven years of imprisonment in the absence of any special or adequate reasons. I do not find any reason much less a special and adequate reason to award lesser sentence. The sentence imposed under Sections 324 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC also can not be said to be harsh or unjust. ( 31. ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant, as indicated above, is hereby maintained. Criminal Appeal dismissed.