Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 154 (GAU)

Md. Rahan Uddin alias Kuki v. State of Assam

2013-03-06

S.C.DAS

body2013
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 29-9-2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in case No. 62 of 2006, whereunder learned Sessions Judge found the accused appellant, Md. Jakir Hussain alias Jakir Hussain Laskar and Md. Rehan Uddin alias Kuki guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced both the accused appellants to suffer RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand) each, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for fifteen days. Learned Sessions Judge also found accused, Md. Jakir Hussain, guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for one month. Sentence in respect of accused Jakir Hussain were directed to run concurrently. Heard learned counsel, Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P., Assam, Mr. B.S. Sinha for the State respondent. 2. Brief Fact: 2.1. Fact of the case, in short, for the purpose of disposal of this criminal appeal is that on 28-7-2003 (Monday), at about 11.00 p.m. (intervening night of 28-7-2003 and 29-7-2003), the victim prosecutrix, "Jahanara" (actual name kept concealed), went out of her residential hut to urinate in her house premises and, at that time, the accused persons caught hold her from behind, gagged her mouth and forcefully took her away from her house and, then took her in the house of accused, Jakir Hussain and kept her confined in the room. She was threatened not to raise any alarm. The accused bolted the door from inside and, thereafter, against her will, committed rape on her three/four times on that night. She was a student of Class-V and was aged thirteen years at that time. She was threatened not to raise any alarm. The accused bolted the door from inside and, thereafter, against her will, committed rape on her three/four times on that night. She was a student of Class-V and was aged thirteen years at that time. She requested the accused to open the door but the accused declined and, at dawn, she asked the accused to open the door saying that she would go out to urinate and the accused took her out and after urination she was again taken back in that room and the accused, asking her to wait there on the cot, went out of the room and whispered something with her sister and parents and then went away. After sometimes, sister of the accused, namely Sajia Begum, entered into the room and assaulted "Jahanara". Thereafter, the parents of the accused, Jakir and her relatives also assaulted her but she was still waiting in that room as there was no scope for her to go back to her house as she was afraid of being ill treated by her father. Subsequently, she was driven out from the house of the accused Jakir after physical assault by him and, then, she went to the house of Gafur Uddin alias Gafur Panchayat and, ultimately, she took shelter in the house of Sonu Miah, brother of Gafur, in the same house. 2.2. Mother of "Jahanara", namely, Kamlarun Nessa (PW-2), while woke up, found "Jahanara" missing in the room and she went out on a search but found her nowhere in the house. She reported her neighbours and also called her husband, who was ill, but on search "Jahanara" could not be traced out. On the following morning, Noorjan Begum (PW-3) went out in the village to find out "Jahanara" and in course of search she went to the house of accused Jakir and enquired with Sajia about "Jahanara" to which Sajia told her (witness) that "Jahanara" was not there. While Noorjan was coming back home, some minor boys of the locality, informed her (witness) that they found the inmates of the house of Jakir Hussain were assaulting "Jahanara" in the house. Thereafter, she came back home and reported the incident to Kamlarun, i.e. the mother of the victim girl. 2.3. While Noorjan was coming back home, some minor boys of the locality, informed her (witness) that they found the inmates of the house of Jakir Hussain were assaulting "Jahanara" in the house. Thereafter, she came back home and reported the incident to Kamlarun, i.e. the mother of the victim girl. 2.3. On 30-7-2003, Kamlarun went to Lala PS and reported the incident lodging an FIR in writing narrating the fact and, accordingly, Lala PS Case No. 138 of 2003 under Section 447, 366A, 342, 376, 323 and 34 IPC was registered and an investigation was taken up. 2.4. In course of investigation, the victim prosecutrix was forwarded to Hailakandi Civil Hospital for her medical examination and, three medical officers, namely (i) Dr. P.K. Majumder, (ii) Dr. T.K. Bhattacharjee and (iii) Dr. (Mrs.) R. Begum, medically examined the victim girl and her ossification test also was done. It was reported that she was aged fourteen-fifteen years as on 30-7-2003. The prosecutrix was also produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. In course of investigation, I.O. examined all material witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. I.O. also collected the medical examination report, etc. and, thereafter submitted charge sheet against accused, Jakir Hussain and Kuki Mia, and prayed for discharging FIR named accused, Sajia Begum. 2.5. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and, thereafter, in due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial against accused, Jakir Hussain and Kuki Mia. 2.6. Learned Sessions Judge, in course of trial on 20-9-2006, framed charges against accused, Jakir Hussain for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and, as against Jakir Hussain and Kuki Mia, under Section 366 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.7. To prove the charges, prosecution examined six witnesses, namely-PW-1, the victim prosecutrix, PW-2, Kamlarun Nessa, mother of the prosecutrix, who was also the informant of the case, PW-3, Noorjan Begum, a neighbour of the informant, PW-4, Abdul Gafur, another neighbour and relative of the accused Jakir, who was declared hostile by the prosecution, PW-5, Dr. (Mrs.) R. Begum, one of the doctors, who conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix and, PW-6 was the I.O. of the case. 2.8. (Mrs.) R. Begum, one of the doctors, who conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix and, PW-6 was the I.O. of the case. 2.8. Accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. after closure of the prosecution evidence and, thereafter, in their turn, they declined to adduce any defence evidence. Defence case so far ascertained from the trend of cross examination as well as from the statements of the accused persons made while examination under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., is that of bare denial of the prosecution case and nothing else. 2.9. At the conclusion of trial, learned Sessions Judge found both the accused persons guilty of the charges framed against them and, accordingly convicted them for the offence and sentenced them as stated hereinbefore. 3. Learned counsel, Mr. Barbhuiya, with all his emphasis, has submitted that the incident occurred on 27-7-2003 at 1.00 pm, as alleged by the informant and the victim prosecutrix. No FIR was lodged on that night itself, which was quite unnatural for the parents of a minor girl. On 29th also no FIR was lodged. Only on 30th the FIR was lodged, narrating the fact and the delay has not been explained, so an adverse inference may be drawn. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Sinha, on the other hand, has submitted that it is a case of rape on a minor girl. It might happen that because of social stigma the parents might have thought twice to inform the police and to make such things in public considering the future of such a young girl. Delay in such case is not at all fatal since there is nothing that there was embellishment or afterthought in the prosecution case. 3.1. The second argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Barbhuiya, is that the sole evidence of the prosecutrix in the given facts and circumstances of the case may not be relied on, since it is not supported by the medical evidence. The medical report in no way supporting that the prosecutrix was raped by the accused, Jakir Hussain. He has also submitted that, according to the statement of the prosecutrix, the accused committed rape three/four times on that night, i.e. the night between 28-7-2003 and 29-7-2003. She was medically examined on 30-7-2003. She was an unmarried young girl, aged about 13/14 years, as alleged. He has also submitted that, according to the statement of the prosecutrix, the accused committed rape three/four times on that night, i.e. the night between 28-7-2003 and 29-7-2003. She was medically examined on 30-7-2003. She was an unmarried young girl, aged about 13/14 years, as alleged. If she was raped by a young person for three to four times in one night, there might be some sorts of lacerations in the private parts of the victim, i.e. in her labia majora and labia minora. In absence of any positive finding by the doctors the sole oral evidence of the prosecutrix should not have been relied on by the learned Sessions Judge for recording a conviction under Section 376 of IPC. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Sinha, per contra, has submitted that penetration or discharge of semen is not necessary to prove rape. If the penis touches the vulva, in the process, it amounts to rape. A minor girl of twelve to fourteen years was taken in the house of the accused and kept her confined in the room and her evidence has not been shaken in any manner and while she stated that the accused committed rape on her three/four times, her statement should not be thrown overboard, unless a reasonable case to the contrary is brought on record. It is contended by learned Addl. P.P. that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if inspires confidence, is enough to record a conviction for rape. 3.2. Learned counsel, Mr. Barbhuiya has further argued that the victim prosecutrix, even if believed as a whole, might be a consenting party, who went out of her house at her own volition. The story that she was forcefully taken away by the accused persons can in no way be believed since there was no injury on her person and it was humanly not possible without causing any physical injury to carry a girl away about one Kilometer from her house. Under such circumstances, the finding of learned Sessions Judge in respect of Section 366 of IPC also cannot be held good and should be interfered. Contrary to the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Barbhuiya, it is submitted by learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Under such circumstances, the finding of learned Sessions Judge in respect of Section 366 of IPC also cannot be held good and should be interfered. Contrary to the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Barbhuiya, it is submitted by learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Sinha, that two young men can easily overpower a minor girl aged about thirteen/fourteen years and she can be easily taken away not only one kilometer but far more during night time in a remote village without creating any sorts of hindrance. He has also submitted that the prosecutrix was taken to the police station by her mother from the house of Sonu Mia, the brother of PW-4, Abdul Gafur, where she took shelter after she (prosecutrix) was driven out from the house of the accused. Even if it is presumed that the prosecutrix was enticed away, the accused persons committed the offence of kidnapping since she was minor and enticing away of a minor girl without the consent of her legal guardian is an offence punishable by law and, so, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge is absolutely correct and it does not deserve interference. 4. To consider the submissions advanced by the learned counsel of both side, let us have a glimpse to the evidence on record. 4.1. FIR was lodged on 30-7-2003 naming the fact wherein it has been specifically stated that on 28-7-2003, at about 11.00 pm, when the prosecutrix went out of her hut to urinate, she was forcefully kidnapped by the accused, Jakir Hussain and Kuki Mia and was taken to the house of accused, Jakir Hussain, kept her confined in a room and she was raped by the accused, Jakir Hussain three/four times on that night. FIR has been proved as Exbt. 5. The prosecutrix was placed before the Judicial Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. on 31-7-2003 and, accordingly, her statement was recorded, which has been proved as Exbt. 1 and she made substantially the same statement as stated in the FIR. In her deposition the prosecutrix, "Jahanara", has stated that on the night of occurrence, at about 11.00 pm, she went out of her house to discharge urine informing her mother, who was sleeping with her. 1 and she made substantially the same statement as stated in the FIR. In her deposition the prosecutrix, "Jahanara", has stated that on the night of occurrence, at about 11.00 pm, she went out of her house to discharge urine informing her mother, who was sleeping with her. When she sat to discharge urine the accused persons, Jakir Hussain and Kuki Mia, coming from her backside, caught hold of her, gagged her mouth by pressing hands and, thereafter, both of them carried her away to the house of Jakir Hussain and confined her in a room of the house and Kuki Mia left for his house. Keeping her inside the room, Jakir bolted the room from inside and, thereafter, Jakir removed her wearing apparels and performed sexual intercourse on her. He performed sexual intercourse on her three times on that night though she vehemently objected but the accused did not listen to her. The accused made her naked at the time of performing sexual intercourse. She requested the accused to open the door and to allow her to go out of the room but the accused did not allow her. When she said the accused that she will discharge urine, the accused opened the door and after urination the accused again took her inside the room. At about 5.00 am, the accused asked her to sit on the bed and, then, he went out of the room and had some discussions with his sister and then the accused left the house. At about 8.00 am, sister of the accused, namely, Sajia Begum came to her room and assaulted her and drove her out of the room. Thereafter, father of the accused and another nephew of the accused, namely Kala also came to the room and they also assaulted her by a broom and drove her out. One Tabarak, Alauddin, Gafur Panchayat, and many others, saw the occurrence when she was assaulted. Even after sustaining injuries, as a result, she remained in the house of Jakir Hussain throughout the day. She did not return home because of fear of being assaulted by her father. At about 4.00 pm, accused came back home and he also assaulted her. The distance between the house of Jakir and her house was about a kilometer. Even after sustaining injuries, as a result, she remained in the house of Jakir Hussain throughout the day. She did not return home because of fear of being assaulted by her father. At about 4.00 pm, accused came back home and he also assaulted her. The distance between the house of Jakir and her house was about a kilometer. While the accused and other inmates of his house put her out it was evening and out of fear she did not go back to her house and she went to the house of Gafur Panchayat and disclosed the fact to Gafur. On the next morning, her mother came there and, thereafter they went to Lala PS and lodged the FIR. Police sent her to Hailakandi Civil Hospital for medical examination and she produced her before the Magistrate and she narrated the incident before the Magistrate. She was reading in Class-V at that time. She duly proved her statement recorded by the Magistrate. Except denial and suggestion there is nothing material in the cross-examination of the witness. 4.2. PW-5, Dr. R. Begum was one of the medical officers, who examined the prosecutrix in the Civil Hospital, Hailakandi. Ossification test for determination of her age was also done in the said hospital. Medical report has been proved as Exbt. 2 by the witness and the X-ray report, i.e. age determination report has been proved as Exbt. 3. In Exbt. 2, i.e. the medical examination report, the medical officers recorded that the prosecutrix was examined on 30-7-2003, at about 4.10 pm, and observed that her growth was average with average built and height of her age. Pubic hairs were well grown with auxiliary hairs, breasts were well developed and the prosecutrix gave a history of assault by other family members and there were injuries, (i) one old haematoma over right upper part (4 cm x 2 cm), (ii) another old haematoma over left forearm (3 cm x 2 cm) and another lineal old bruise over the back (5 cm x 1.5 cm). There was no violent mark present over her private parts. Hymen was with old healed tears and menstruation was present. Vaginal swab was collected for medical examination to find out whether there was any spermatozoa. There was no violent mark present over her private parts. Hymen was with old healed tears and menstruation was present. Vaginal swab was collected for medical examination to find out whether there was any spermatozoa. The age of the victim girl was determined after X-ray and other examination and it was opined by the doctors that she was aged between fourteen to fifteen years. It was stated that from the findings noted, no definite opinion could be given as to whether the girl was subjected to recent rape prior to the medical examination. No injury was found in her private parts. In her cross-examination, the doctor stated that no spermatozoa was found in the vaginal swab of the victim girl. 4.3. PW-2, the mother of the victim prosecutrix, materially corroborated the evidence of the prosecutrix. In her deposition she stated that she took her (prosecutrix) to P.S. and lodged the FIR. Her evidence also has not been shaken. 4.4. PW-3 simply made a search on the following day of the night of missing of the prosecutrix and reported about her as she learnt from the village boys that the prosecutrix was found beaten up in the house of accused, Jakir Hussain and, based on that information PW-2, the mother of the prosecutrix, went to the house of Sonu Mia and recovered the girl. 4.5. PW-4, Abdul Gafur, was declared hostile but his statement materially supported the prosecution case. He has stated that on the date of occurrence, brother of accused Jakir Hussain, namely Sibu, came to his house and informed him that Jakir Hussain brought a girl in their house and he (witness) was re-quested to go there to perform their marriage. Accordingly, he went to the house of accused Jakir at about 2.00/3.00 pm and he saw the victim "Jahanara" in the house of accused Jakir. After a while Jakir came to the house and expressed his anger seeing the victim girl in the house. On his query, the victim girl told him that she was taken by accused Jakir to his house and, thereafter, he (witness) took the victim girl to the house of Asai Mia and kept her there and, thereafter, left for his house. Asai Mia produced the victim girl in house of Sonu Mia (brother of the witness). 5. On his query, the victim girl told him that she was taken by accused Jakir to his house and, thereafter, he (witness) took the victim girl to the house of Asai Mia and kept her there and, thereafter, left for his house. Asai Mia produced the victim girl in house of Sonu Mia (brother of the witness). 5. A careful reading of the evidence on record makes it abundantly clear that the victim prosecutrix was aged between 13/15 years at the time of alleged occurrence. In absence of any age proof certificate, we may safely rely on the evidence of PW-5 in respect of the ossification test report and it is abundantly clear that the prosecutrix was a minor girl on the date of alleged occurrence. So, taking her out from the custody of her guardian was an offence punishable by law and I find nothing to disbelieve the prosecution story that the prosecutrix was kidnapped by accused Jakir Hussain and Sonu Mia on the alleged date and time of occurrence. 5.1. Regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, as a find, it is a case of rape of a minor girl, the incident occurred in the extreme rural area of Assam. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand reported in (2001) 6 SCC 71 : 2001 AIR SCW 1903 has held:- Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the Court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire rosecution case. 5.2. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire rosecution case. 5.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramdas & other v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 2 SCC 170 : AIR 2007 SC 155) in paragraph 24 of the judgment has observed thus:- Counsel for the State submitted that the delay in lodging the first information report in such cases is immaterial. The proposition is too broadly stated to merit acceptance. It is no doubt true that mere delay in lodging the first information report is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the Court must take notice. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case, and in a given case the Court may be satisfied that the delay in loading the report has been sufficiently explained. In the light of the totality of the evidence, the Court of fact has to consider whether the delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the prosecution. That is a matter of appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay. Even in the absence of direct explanation there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. There are cases where much time is consumed in taking the injured to the hospital for medical aid and, therefore, the witnesses find no time to lodge the report promptly. There may also be cases where on account of fear and threats, witnesses may avoid going to the police station immediately. The time of occurrence, the distance to the police station, mode of conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on the question of delay in lodging of the report. It is also possible to conceive of cases where the victim and the members of his or her family belong to such a strata of society that they may not even be aware of their right to report the matter to the police and seek legal action, nor was any such advice available to them. It is also possible to conceive of cases where the victim and the members of his or her family belong to such a strata of society that they may not even be aware of their right to report the matter to the police and seek legal action, nor was any such advice available to them. In the case of sexual offences there is another consideration which may weigh in the mind of the Court i.e. the initial hesitation of the victim to report the matter to the police which may affect her family life and family's reputation. Very often in such cases only after considerable persuasion the prosecutrix may be persuaded to disclose the true facts. There are also cases where the victim may choose to suffer the ignominy rather than to disclose the true facts which may cast a stigma on her for the rest of her life. These are case where the initial hesitation of the prosecutrix to disclose the true facts may provide a good explanation for the delay in lodging the report. In the ultimate analysis, what is the effect of delay in lodging the report with the police is a matter of appreciation of evidence, and the Court must consider the delay in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case. Different cases have different facts and it is the totality of evidence and the impact that it has on the mind of the Court that is important. No strait jacket formula can be evolved in such matters, and each case must rest on its own facts. It is settled law that however similar the circumstances, facts in one case cannot be used as a precedent to determine the conclusion on the facts in another. (See Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad: (1955) 1 SCR 1083: AIR 1955 SC 216 ). Thus, mere delay in lodging of the report may not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but the delay has to be considered in the background of the facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the Court of fact. 5.3. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Thus, mere delay in lodging of the report may not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but the delay has to be considered in the background of the facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the Court of fact. 5.3. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Sinha also referred the decision of State of Chhattisgarh v. Darha reported in (2004) 9 SCC 699 : ( AIR 2004 SC 2636 ) wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 7 of the judgment has held thus:- 7. We have noticed the fact that there has been some delay in filing the complaint which according to us has been explained by PW-1, the mother. The fact that the father was out of station on the date of occurrence is not disputed. In such circumstances since it is a minor who was violated, the possibility of there being hesitation on the part of the mother to lodge a complaint cannot be overruled. Even otherwise, the mere factum of delay in filing complaint in regard to an offence of this nature by itself would not be fatal so as to vitiate the prosecution case. The fact that the accused did not suffer any injury on his private parts also will not be of much help to him because he was medically examined 4 days after the incident in question. For the reasons stated above, we are satisfied that the High Court was in error in taking a view different from that of the trial Court and acquitting the accused. 5.4. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 : AIR 1996 SC 1393 , in case of sexual offence regarding delay in lodging FIR has observed:- 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. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. Even if there is some delay in lodging FIR in respect of offence of rape, if it is properly explained and the explanation is natural in the facts and circumstances of the case, such delay would not matter. 5.5. In the case of Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. reported in 1995 Cri LJ 4173, the Supreme Court has held that delay in lodging complaints in such cases in India does not raise inference that complaint was false. Reluctance to go to police is because of society's attitude towards such women, victims. 5.6. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1983 SC 753 has held:- A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had even occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. 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. If he 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. In view of these and similar factors the victims and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to book. And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. 5.7. In the case at hand, a minor girl, aged about thirteen to fifteen years, was subjected to sexual molestation as alleged by her. There is nothing before us to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix. She was taken away from her house during night time and for the following whole day she was in the house of accused and at evening she took shelter in the house of Sonu Mia, when PW-4 took her there. Her mother, PW-2, an illiterate woman could trace out her only in the evening of that day. She was taken away from her house during night time and for the following whole day she was in the house of accused and at evening she took shelter in the house of Sonu Mia, when PW-4 took her there. Her mother, PW-2, an illiterate woman could trace out her only in the evening of that day. On the following day, they went to PS and lodged the FIR, which is proved as Exbt. 5. In the FIR it has been clearly stated that since it was already night and since their home was far away from P.S., delay was caused in lodging the FIR. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the delay, in my considered opinion, was sufficiently explained and such explanation can be accepted. 6. The victim prosecutrix stated that she was raped three/four times on the night of the occurrence by the accused in his house. If it was so, ordinarily, there would be some marks of injury in her private parts. The medical examination was done in the evening of 30-7-2003. Doctors opined that no specific opinion could be given about rape. They found no recent evidence of rape. Admittedly, medical examination was done after about thirty six hours and at the time of examination she was found menstruating. Doctors found her hymen healed with tears but it was old. There was no cross-examination how old it was. Hymen may be ruptured because of many other reasons apart from penetration. While the victim girl made specific statement that the accused raped her repeatedly on the night of occurrence, how can we disbelieve her statement simply because that doctors could not arrive at a definite finding that the evidence of recent sexual intercourse was not available. Doctors have not given any specific finding that there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse at all. While the hymen was found with old healed tears, and there was no cross-examination also as to how old it was, we may not form a negative opinion based on such observation made by the medical officers. Her contention that she was beaten up by the inmates of the house of the accused is rather substantiated by medical evidence that doctors found injuries on the persons of the victim that old haematoma and bruise, etc. 7. Her contention that she was beaten up by the inmates of the house of the accused is rather substantiated by medical evidence that doctors found injuries on the persons of the victim that old haematoma and bruise, etc. 7. In the case of Bodhusattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty reported in AIR 1996 SC 922 the Apex Court has observed thus:- Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman (victim). It is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights and is violative of the victims most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the right to life contained in Article 21. The Supreme Court in the case of Gurmit Singh (supra) has observed:- 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 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 murder destroys the physical body of the 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 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 molestation. 8. The Court, while trying a case of rape, has got some duty to stand and even in evaluating the position of a victim prosecutrix in a given circumstances of a case of rape. We cannot expect that a sexual offender will commit the offence in presence of others to be a witness of the crime. It is committed in such a manner that simply the victim of the crime remained the witness. A victim of rape is not an accomplish. Her evidence should be regarded as evidence of an injured in an incident. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy reported in AIR 1997 SC 1588 , the Supreme Court has observed that the Courts while trying an accused on charges of rape, they must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. They 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 a fatal nature to throw out allegations of rape. This is all the more important because of late crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the considered opinion that delay in lodging the FIR in the given facts and circumstances of the case is not at all fatal and on that ground no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case. The victim was minor at the time of alleged occurrence and it is proved with unshaken evidence that she was kidnapped by the accused persons from the custody of her guardian without their consent with a view to sexual abuse on her. The victim was minor at the time of alleged occurrence and it is proved with unshaken evidence that she was kidnapped by the accused persons from the custody of her guardian without their consent with a view to sexual abuse on her. The victim's evidence inspires all confidence and it is so credible that even without other corroboration, only on her sole testimony, conviction can be recorded, and I find nothing wrong in the finding arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence of both the accused as recorded by learned Sessions Judge, therefore, is maintained. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed. 10. It is found that the victim's name and identity are clearly mentioned in the judgment though there is specific direction by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the victim's identity, i.e. her name, etc. should be kept concealed. It is advisable to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2003) 8 SCC 551 : ( AIR 2003 SC 4684 ) and the learned Sessions Judge as well as the Courts below are advised to take care of it in future. In paragraph 2 of the judgment the Apex Court has observed that Section 228A of IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished. True it is the restriction does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by High Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracisms of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgments, be it of High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated. It is expected that the Courts below should follow the directions of the Supreme Court in letter and spirit. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.