JUDGMENT R.C. Mishra, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19/11/2005 passed by Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No. 254/05 whereby the Appellants were convicted and sentenced as under- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. and Convicted Sentenced to name of under Section Appellant ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Radhey 376 of IPC undergo R.I for 10 years & to pay Shyam fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 1 year. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) Bhagwan 366 of IPC undergo RI for 5 years & to pay Singh fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 1 year. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Prosecution case, in short, may be stated thus- (i) The prosecutrix (PW3) is the legally wedded wife of Appellant No. 2 Bhagwan Singh (for short 'A2'). Their marriage was solemnized on 22nd of May 2005. Appellant No. 1 Radheshyam Ahirwar (hereinafter referred to as A1) is the friend of A2. (ii) At the relevant point of time, A1 was residing in village Dhamarra, Police Station Gunga, Distt. Bhopal whereas the prosecutrix was living with A2 in village Kolwa, Police Station Ashoka Garden, Bhopal. (iii) On 8/7/2005 at about 5.45 p.m. on returning home, A2 told the prosecutrix that he had received telephonic information from her mother Rajkumari (PW4) regarding illness of her father Sunil (PW6). He then took her on a Motorcycle driven by A1 to her parental home located in Satlapur Road, Mandidep, Bhopal. Finding her father hale and hearty as she disclosed the purpose of her visit, she was apprised by her parents that none of them had made any telephonic call to A2 on that day. (iv) While returning home on the same Motorcycle as they reached Indus Garden Colony, Bhopal A1 stopped the motorcycle in front of the colony where A1 informed the prosecutrix that she had been sold to him by her husband for a consideration of Rs. 5000/- and A2 also accepted A1's assertion as true. Thereafter, A2 went away on the motorcycle and A1 took the prosecutrix to a nearby open plot and subjected her to rape. (v) In the morning, A1 extricated the prosecutrix. She boarded a mini bus to reach her matrimonial home and not finding A1 there, reported the matter to police at P.S. Ashoka Garden. Ultimately, on 11.07.2005, the prosecutrix came to her parents' house and narrated the incident to her mother Rajkumari. (v) In the morning, A1 extricated the prosecutrix. She boarded a mini bus to reach her matrimonial home and not finding A1 there, reported the matter to police at P.S. Ashoka Garden. Ultimately, on 11.07.2005, the prosecutrix came to her parents' house and narrated the incident to her mother Rajkumari. She, in turn, took the prosecutrix to the Police Station at Mandideep where a case under Section 376 read with 34 of the IPC was registered upon report (Ex.P-2) lodged by the victim. It was transferred to P.S. Misrod Distt. Bhopal within whose jurisdiction, the alleged rape was committed for investigation. On 12.07.2005, the prosecutrix was sent to J.P. Hospital Bhopal for medical examination. Dr. Mrs. N. Batham, not being able to give any definite opinion as to rape, prepared two slides from vaginal smear of the prosecutrix for chemical analysis. 3. After due investigation, charge-sheet was put up in the Court of Shri S.K. Shrivastava, JMFC, Bhopal, who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 4. The Appellants were charged with the offences under Sections 376 and 366 of the IPC respectively. They abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. However, in the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, none of them assigned any cogent cause therefor. Nevertheless, in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix (PW3), it was suggested that she had concocted a case to get rid of a lawful marriage. 5. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses including the prosecutrix and her parents. No evidence was led in defence. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, learned trial Judge, for the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment, proceeded to hold the Appellants' guilty of the respective offences charged with. 6. Legality and propriety of the convictions have been challenged inter alia on the following grounds- (i) Delay in lodging the report. (ii) Non-production of the report said to have been lodged by the prosecutrix on 09.07.2005 at PS Ashoka Garden, Bhopal and referred to in the FIR (Ex.P-1). (iii) Non-examination of medical expert Dr. Mrs. N. Batham whose report indicated that only an attempt to ravish the prosecutrix was made. (iv) Material infirmities in the testimony of prosecutrix with reference to the recitals of the FIR (Ex.P-1) and the contents of her case diary statement (Ex.D-1). (iii) Non-examination of medical expert Dr. Mrs. N. Batham whose report indicated that only an attempt to ravish the prosecutrix was made. (iv) Material infirmities in the testimony of prosecutrix with reference to the recitals of the FIR (Ex.P-1) and the contents of her case diary statement (Ex.D-1). (v) Non-corroborative evidence of Rajkumari, the mother of the prosecutrix. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has further contended that A2, being the husband, could not be convicted for abduction of the prosecutrix. In response, learned Govt. Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence, has submitted that convictions are well merited. 7. The prosecutrix (PW3) substantially reiterated the allegations as recorded in the First Information Report (Ex.P-1) by Head Constable Subhash Pandey (PW1) at her instance only. He was not cross-examined at all despite the fact that the FIR reflected existence of an earlier report regarding the same incident as made by the prosecutrix at P.S. Ashoka Garden, Bhopal. The prosecutrix was emphatic in stating that on 09.07.2005, she had gone to P.S. Ashoka Garden. According to her, she was advised to lodge a report at Mandideep Police Station wherefrom the case was transferred to Police Station Misrod. 8. As per statement of the prosecutrix, A2 had persuaded her upon a false pretext of illness of her father Sunil (PW6) to accompany on a motorcycle driven by A1 up to her parental home and from there, to the place where she was handed over to A1 apparently for the purpose of being subjected to an illicit intercourse. She vividly described as to how she was ravished by the A1 after being taken to a nearby plot of land. 9. It is true that Rajkumari (PW4), the mother of the prosecutrix, did not come forward to support the corresponding version but her husband Sunil Soni (PW6) clearly admitted that he was apprised by the prosecutrix about the sale transaction. 10. The proposition of law that the victim of rape can not be treated as an accomplice and therefore, no corroboration is necessary to act upon her evidence, is well settled. The prosecutrix, in this case, at the relevant point of time, is a newly married girl aged about 18 years. 10. The proposition of law that the victim of rape can not be treated as an accomplice and therefore, no corroboration is necessary to act upon her evidence, is well settled. The prosecutrix, in this case, at the relevant point of time, is a newly married girl aged about 18 years. As observed by the Apex Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujrat AIR 1983 SC 753 a married woman, ordinarily, would not come forward to make a false charge of rape as it involves risk of losing love and respect of her own husband. As explained further, discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, can not be annexed with undue importance. Injury on the body or private parts of the prosecutrix is also not sine qua non to prove a charge of rape. This apart, in a rape case, delay in lodging the FIR, if satisfactorily explained, would not be fatal to the prosecution. 11. Absence of corresponding injuries during the medical examination conducted on 12.07.07.2005 at 3.15 p.m. i.e. more than 80 hours after the sexual assault in question, was not by itself sufficient to falsify the case of alleged rape on her. As laid down by the Apex Court in S.K. Zakir v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 911 and reiterated in State of M.P. v. Dayal Sahu AIR 2005 SC 3570 even non-examination of doctor and non-production of the doctor's report would not be fatal to the prosecution case, if the statements of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses inspire confidence. This apart, location of the place of occurrence was also not sufficient to make the prosecution case improbable Parbata v. State of Rajasthan (2005)13 SCC 398 referred to. 12. The unproved and un-exhibited report as to medical examination of the prosecutrix produced by the prosecution yet favouring the defence to a certain extent could be used by the Appellants to challenge veracity of prosecutrix's testimony See. Lallusingh v. State of M.P. 1996 MPLJ 452 . However, as observed by the Supreme Court in Visveswaran v. State AIR 2003 SC 2471 - The approach required to be adopted by Courts in rape cases has to be different. The cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity, Courts have to show greater responsibility when trying an accused on charge of rape. However, as observed by the Supreme Court in Visveswaran v. State AIR 2003 SC 2471 - The approach required to be adopted by Courts in rape cases has to be different. The cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity, Courts have to show greater responsibility when trying an accused on charge of rape. In such cases, the broader probabilities are required to be examined and the Courts are not to get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies, which are not of substantial character. The evidence is required to be appreciated having regard to the background of the entire case and not in isolation. The ground realities are to be kept in view. It is also required to be kept in view that every defective investigation need not necessarily result in the acquittal. In defective investigation, the only requirement is of extra caution by Courts while evaluating evidence. It would not be just to acquit the accused solely as a result of defective investigation. Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved. 13. In this view of the matter, the history recorded in the medical report suggesting that it was a mere attempt to rape did not assume any significance. 14. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that in view of the admitted fact that prosecutrix was above 16 years of age, the conviction for the offence of rape was not sustainable in law. The contention is apparently misconceived because it is a trite law that submission of body under fear of terror or duress would not amount to consent See. State of H.P. v. Mange Ram AIR 2000 SC 2798 and her evidence that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse should normally be accepted unless there is material leading to inference of her consent State of Rajasthan v. N.K. (2000)5 SCC 30 relied on. 15. The defence that the prosecutrix had lodged a false report with a view to snapping marital ties with A2 was apparently improbable as firstly, only a period of 46 days had elapsed after the marriage and secondly, in case of incompatibility for any reason whatsoever, it is easier to get divorce by mutual consent. 16. 15. The defence that the prosecutrix had lodged a false report with a view to snapping marital ties with A2 was apparently improbable as firstly, only a period of 46 days had elapsed after the marriage and secondly, in case of incompatibility for any reason whatsoever, it is easier to get divorce by mutual consent. 16. For these reasons, none of the contentions raised against legality and propriety of the order of conviction recorded against A1 deserves acceptance. 17. Adverting to the liability of A2, it may be observed that he had resorted to deceitful means in inducing the prosecutrix to go from one place to another. The expression "deceitful means" is vide enough to include the inducing of a wife by husband on a false pretext. Had it been a case of forcible carrying of the wife from her parents' house, the husband could not be convicted See. Pirmohammad v. State of M.P. AIR 1960 MP 24 but, it was a case of sale of a wife and consequently, her abduction by deceitful means. Thus, facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable. 18. Kunhi Raman, the then Chief Justice of Travencore Cochin High Court, speaking for the Division Bench, explained the law on the subject in the following words- Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code provides the punishment for abducting a woman, in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, which is imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years and also fine. It will be noticed that no question arises as to whether there was consent or absence of consent in the case of an offence under this section. It is not necessary according to the definition of abduction, that any force should be used. It is enough if by deceitful means a woman is induced to go from any place. If the intention of the accused is that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse by which is meant intercourse between a man and woman who are not husband and wife, that would make the accused liable for this offence under Section 366. It is enough if by deceitful means a woman is induced to go from any place. If the intention of the accused is that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse by which is meant intercourse between a man and woman who are not husband and wife, that would make the accused liable for this offence under Section 366. The framers of the Code deliberately introduced this section into the Code with the object of providing for cases like the present, where there may be difficulty in asserting positively whether there was consent or no consent, and that question will have to be decided specially with reference to the evidence of the woman who complains of the offence. In such cases, where it is clear from the evidence that the person who is charged had abducted the woman in order that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse, he can be brought under Section 366 and punished. 19. Accordingly, the conviction of A2 for the offence of abduction also does not call for interference. 20. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be observed that A2 has already suffered the impugned sentences. Further, interests of justice would be met if the term of custodial sentence awarded to A1 is reduced to the minimum prescribed for the offence of rape. 21. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. In the result- (i) The conviction and consequent sentences passed against A2 Bhagwan Singh are hereby affirmed. (ii) The conviction and consequent sentence of fine awarded to A1 Radhe Shyam are maintained. However, the term of sentence of imprisonment is reduced from 10 years to 7 years. 22. Before parting with the judgment, it may be observed that learned trial Judge has violated the guideline laid down by the Apex Court in Bhupinder Sharma v. State of H.P. AIR 2003 SC 4684 by disclosing identity of the prosecutrix in first five paragraphs of the judgment. 23. Registrar General is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate action.