Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1090 (HP)

Kuldip Kumar @ D. C. v. State of H. P.

2014-08-19

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment, rendered on 30th November, 2012, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.9/7 of 2012, whereby, the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 376(f) of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months along with fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 323 of the Indian penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one month respectively for both the aforesaid offences. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8.7.2010, at about 7.00 a.m., Kanta Devi (PW-13), the mother of the prosecutrix, sent her daughter (the prosecutrix) to fetch water from the hand pump. The prosecutrix met the accused there, who allured her to see boats and took her in the bushes. The accused asked the prosecutrix to open her pants but she refused. On this, the accused gagged her mouth. Thereafter, the accused opened her pants as well as his own pants and committed rape on her. The prosecutrix returned home and narrated the entire incident to her mother and apprised her that Kuldeep Kumar @ D.C. had committed bad act upon her. On this, the mother of the prosecutrix, along with the prosecutrix, went near the Badd (Banyan) tree and met the accused there. The accused abused them. Thereafter, Kanta Devi, the mother of the prosecutrix, went to Meena Kumari and narrated the incident to her. They both went to the house of Taro Devi, sister of the accused. Accused was also present there. Accused and his sister, Taro Devi abused Kanta Devi. Kanta Devi subsequently went to the house of Kamla Devi, the Ward Member, but she was not found at home. She came on 9.7.2010 and the incident was narrated to her. The father of the prosecutrix was not at home on 7.7.2010 and 8.7.2010 and returned on 9.7.2010. Kanta Devi narrated the incident to him on 9.7.2010. On 10.7.2010, the matter was reported to the police at P.A.R.Jandhutta. Rapat, Ext.PW-8/A, was registered. She came on 9.7.2010 and the incident was narrated to her. The father of the prosecutrix was not at home on 7.7.2010 and 8.7.2010 and returned on 9.7.2010. Kanta Devi narrated the incident to him on 9.7.2010. On 10.7.2010, the matter was reported to the police at P.A.R.Jandhutta. Rapat, Ext.PW-8/A, was registered. On medical examination of the prosecutrix, the doctor, after perusing the report of the Chemical Examiner, comprised in Ext.PW-4/C, opined that there were signs of physical violence and possibility of sexual intercourse. The doctor also found abrasion in the front of the knee and on the back of forearm of the prosecutrix and described the same in the MLC. 3. Initially, the F.I.R., Ext.PW-5/A, was registered under Section 354 IPC and on the basis of further investigation and on completion of the investigation, challan under Section 376 and 323 IPC was filed against the accused. 4. On conclusion of investigation into the offences, allegedly committed by the appellant/accused, challan was filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The accused was charged for his having committed offences punishable under Sections 376(f) & 323 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of appellant/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Court in which the accused claimed false implication and pleaded innocence. In defence, the appellants/accused chose not to enter into any defence. 7. On appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused for his having committed the offence, aforesaid. 8. The first witness, who stepped into the witness box, in support of the prosecution case, is, PW-1 (Meena Kumari), who deposes that on 8.7.2010, at about 8:00 a.m., Kanta Devi (PW-13), mother of the prosecutrix, came to her. She deposes that Kanta Devi is her cousin sister. The said Kanta Devi has been deposed to have apprised PW-1 that she had sent her daughter (the prosecutrix) to fetch water from hand pump, however, she did not return. She further deposes she was apprised by Kanta Devi that she launched a search to locate her daughter and found her daughter weeping near the hand pump. The said Kanta Devi has been deposed to have apprised PW-1 that she had sent her daughter (the prosecutrix) to fetch water from hand pump, however, she did not return. She further deposes she was apprised by Kanta Devi that she launched a search to locate her daughter and found her daughter weeping near the hand pump. Besides, she deposes that the prosecutrix apprised her mother that she was taken by D.C. towards Mahila Mandal in the bushes. This witness further deposes that Kanta Devi, mother of the prosecutrix, also apprised her that the said D.C. had allured the prosecutrix to see boat. She proceeds to depose that the mother of the prosecutrix also divulged to her that the prosecutrix had revealed to her that the said D.C. opened the trousers of the prosecutrix and also his own trousers and committed the forcible act. She deposes that she cannot disclose the said forcible act owing to shame. PW-1 continues to depose that the mother of the prosecutrix apprised her that the prosecutrix had told her mother that her daughter communicated to the latter that she was rescued from the clutches of the D.C. as some voice was over heard and the prosecutrix also apprised the accused that her mother had come. Subsequently, PW-1 deposes that Kanta Devi went to the house of the Ward Member, who was not available there. PW-1 proceeds to depose that Kanta Devi came to the house of this witness. D.C. is also known as Kuldeep. Sister of Kuldeep is deposed to have been married in that village and Kuldeep used to visit the house of his sister. Thereafter, she deposes that this witness as well as Kanta Devi went to the house of the sister of the accused and the accused was found to be present there and an enquiry was made from the accused about the incident. In her cross-examination, she deposes that she was not abused by Taro Devi and the accused. 9. Kamla Sharma (PW-2) deposes that she was Ward Member of Dehan Ward in Gram Panchayat, Dahad in the year 2010. She deposes that she was not at home on the date of the incident, however, came home in the evening of 9.7.2010. In her cross-examination, she deposes that she was not abused by Taro Devi and the accused. 9. Kamla Sharma (PW-2) deposes that she was Ward Member of Dehan Ward in Gram Panchayat, Dahad in the year 2010. She deposes that she was not at home on the date of the incident, however, came home in the evening of 9.7.2010. She further deposes that the mother of the prosecutrix, Kanta Devi, communicated to her that she had come to her on the previous day, yet, she was not available, hence, she had proceeded to the house of Meena Devi. She further deposes that on her asking Kanta Devi, she apprised that the clothes of the prosecutrix were washed by her and the prosecutrix had also taken bath. Subsequently, she deposes that she as well as the mother of the prosecutrix went to the Police Post on 10.7.2010 and lodged the report. The police had visited the village on 11.7.2010. The police have been deposed to have taken into possession the trousers of the prosecutrix as was produced by Kanta Devi. The trousers, were sealed in parcel with five seal impression ‘P’. She continues to depose that she had signed memo Ext.PW-2/A in red circle ‘A’. During the course of examination of this witness, the sealed parcel was produced, it bore five seals, all the seals were found intact. On permission having been granted by the Court to open the parcel, it was found to contain small pants Ext.P-1 and the item on being shown to this witness has been deposed by her to be the same. 10. Keshva Nand (PW-3) is the father of the prosecutrix. He deposes that the prosecutrix is aged about 11 years. On 7.7.2010, he deposes that he had gone out from his village to Vijaypur in connection with his profession and had returned on 9.7.2010. On his return, he deposes that his wife had narrated the entire incident to him. He further deposes that he was apprised that the prosecutrix was sent to fetch water from the hand pump on 8.7.2010 at 7.00 a.m., however, she did not return. Thereafter, his wife launched a search to locate her. He deposes that when his wife (Kanta Devi) met the prosecutrix she was found weeping. He further deposes that he was apprised that the prosecutrix was sent to fetch water from the hand pump on 8.7.2010 at 7.00 a.m., however, she did not return. Thereafter, his wife launched a search to locate her. He deposes that when his wife (Kanta Devi) met the prosecutrix she was found weeping. He further deposes that his wife intimated him that the prosecutrix had conveyed to her that D.C. @ Kuldeep took her to nearby bushes and committed bad act with the prosecutrix. PW-3 deposes that he confirmed the said fact from the prosecutrix. He continues to depose that in the night of 9.7.2010, Panchayat was called and he had gone to the house of Taro Devi. The accused has been deposed to have been not present there. Though Taro Devi initially agreed to call the accused but later on refused and then he came back. Subsequently, he deposes that the report was not lodged on 8/9.7.2010 as this witness, his brother and nephew were not available at home. 11. PW-4 (Dr.Superiya Atwal, Medical Officer, R.H. Bilaspur), in her deposition, proves M.L.C. Ext.PW-4/B which records the observations made by PW-4 on examination on the person of the prosecutrix. She, in her examination-in-chief, deposes that the prosecutrix was found conscious, co-operative and well oriented. She further deposes that on her examination, she found: “GPE- Normal. Systems Examination: 1. Abrasion present on front of left knee, brownish red in colour 1x0.5 cm in size. 2. Abrasion present on back of left forearm 1 x 1 cm in size, reddish brown in colour, tender. Internal examination: External Genitals: 1. Pubic hair – absent. 2. Labia majora – swollen, no injury/bleeding present. 3. Labia minora – swollen. 4. Introitus – admissing one ginger. Tender on touch. 5. Hymen – torn. Internal Genitalia: 1. P/S – could not be done. 2. P/V – admitting one little finger, tender on touch.” On examination of the person of the prosecutrix she recorded the opinion that there are signs of physical violence and the possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. However, PW-4 reserved final opinion till the receipt of the report of the Chemical Analyst. The duration of injury has been deposed to be between 48 to 72 hours. Injuries No. 1 and 2 have been deposed to be possible if a person tries to rape or rapes a girl of nine years. However, PW-4 reserved final opinion till the receipt of the report of the Chemical Analyst. The duration of injury has been deposed to be between 48 to 72 hours. Injuries No. 1 and 2 have been deposed to be possible if a person tries to rape or rapes a girl of nine years. On 25.9.2010 she deposes that the police had shown to her Chemical Examiner Report Ext.PW-4/C and accordingly, she gave her final opinion, which remained the same as given by her on 10.7.2010. In her cross-examination she admits to be correct the suggestion put to her that the redness on the private part can be caused by scratching or rubbing by the girl herself or by her mother at the time of bath or otherwise. However, she deposes that such scratching or rubbing must be forceful. 12. PW-5 (Inspector Chaman Lal) deposes that on 10.7.2010 one Nakal Rapat No.6 was received by him from Constable Gian Chand for registration of the F.I.R. On the basis of the said report, he deposes that F.I.R. No.194, comprised in Ext.PW-5/A, was registered by him in Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur. After registration of the F.I.R., he deposes that the case file was prepared and sent to P.A.R. Jandhuta, through the same Constable for investigation. He further deposes that the F.I.R. bears his signatures. 13. PW-6, (Dr.Rakesh Dhiman, M.O. R.H., Hamirpur), in his deposition proves MLC Ext.PW-6/B issued by him qua his examination of the person of the accused. He deposes that that on examination of the person of the accused, he found him to be medically fit and there was nothing to suggest that he was not capable to perform sexual intercourse. He, in his examination-in-chief, identified the accused to be the same person who was examined by him and qua whom MLC Ext.PW-6/B was issued. 14. PW-7 (HC Dev Raj) deposes that on 16.7.2010, HHC Raj Kumar, No.5/2-34 brought one cloth parcel sealed with five seals of seal ‘T’ from P.A.R. Jandhuta vide R.C. No.31/10, for depositing in the Malkhana Register at Sr.No.1253/101, a copy of which is deposed to be Ext.PW-7/A, which is deposed to be correct as per the original record. This witness further deposes that copy of the R.C. No.31/10 is Mark-A. 15. This witness further deposes that copy of the R.C. No.31/10 is Mark-A. 15. PW-8 (Constable Baldev Raj) deposes that on 10.7.2010, Kanta Devi, along with her husband and prosecutrix, came to P.A.R., Jandhuta and lodged Rapat No.6 in the daily diary, which was entered by him in the daily diary. A copy of Rapat No.6 is comprised in Ext.PW-8/A, which is deposed to be correct as per the original Rapat, made in the daily diary and bears his signatures in red circle ‘A’. He further deposes that he produced the original record pertaining to R.C. No.31/10 Ext.PW-8/B, which is correct as per original R.C. Book. He continues to depose that he had sent Rapat Ext.PW-8/A to Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur, through Constable Gian Chand No.155 for registration of the F.I.R. In his cross-examination, he denies the suggestion put to him that the original record produced by him does not bear the signatures of Kanta Devi. He further deposes that Meena had not accompanied the complainant and other at the time of lodging the Rapat. 16. PW-9 (ASI Dalip Chand) deposes that on 16.9.2010, ASi Pardeep Kumar, Incharge, P.A.R., Jhandhuta, handed over to him the case file of the present case. He deposes that on 10.3.2011, this witness arrested accused Kuldeep under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and released him on bail and thereafter he handed over the case file to S.H.O., Police Station, Sadar. In his cross-examination, he deposes that he sent HC Pritam and Constable Hardev Singh to Amritsar and the said officials brought the accused to Jhandhuta and then he arrested the accused. He feigns ignorance as to what clothes were worn by the accused at that time. 17. PW-10 (ASI Sudershan Kumar) deposes that he moved an application to the Secretary, G.P.Dahad, for obtaining birth certificate of the prosecutrix, which is Ext.PW-10/A and the Secretary issued certificate Ext.PW-10/B. He moved the application Ext.PW-6/A for the medical examination of Kuldeep Kumar and obtained MLC Ext.PW-6/B. 18. PW-11 (HC Ajay Kumar) deposes that he recorded the statements of MHC Dev Raj, C.Baldev Raj and HHC Raj Kumar on 9.11.2011 and handed over the case file to ASI Sudershan Kumar. 19. PW-12 (Partap Singh, Dy.S.P.) deposes that after completion of the investigation, the file was given to him by ASI Sudershan Singh and he prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court. 20. 19. PW-12 (Partap Singh, Dy.S.P.) deposes that after completion of the investigation, the file was given to him by ASI Sudershan Singh and he prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court. 20. PW-13 (Kanta Devi), the mother of the prosecutrix, in her deposition, deposes that the prosecutrix is aged about 11 years. She deposes that on 8.7.2010, at about 7.00 a.m., she had sent the prosecutrix to fetch water from the hand pump. She deposes that the prosecutrix returned weeping after some time. PW-13 asked her for the cause of weeping. She deposes that she narrated to her that one person had taken her in the bushes for showing boat. She further deposes that the prosecutrix also disclosed to her that D.C. @ Kuldeep opened her pants and committed bad act with the prosecutrix. She further deposes that one woman was there lifting fallen mangoes. She continues to depose that her daughter (the prosecutrix) told D.C. @ Kuldeep while pointing to the said woman that she was her mother and thereafter the prosecutrix came home weeping. A further fact, which emanates on a reading of her evidence, is, that the prosecutrix told this witness that she could recognize the person who committed bad act with her. Consequently, she and her daughter went towards ‘Badd’ (Banyan) tree and there they found the accused, present in the Court, at the spot. She asked the accused what he had done with her daughter (the prosecutrix), however, he started abusing her. Thereafter, she took Meena and went with her to the house of Taro Devi, sister of the accused. She further deposes that the accused and Taro Devi abused her and thereafter they came home. Subsequently, she went to Ward Member Kamla Devi, who was not at home. Thereafter, this witness reported the matter to the police vide Rapat Ext.PW-8/A, which has been deposed to have been signed by her in red circle ‘A’. She further deposes that the police visited the spot. The police have been deposed to have taken into possession the pants of the prosecutrix. The pants were taken into possession in a cloth parcel and sealed with five seals of seal ‘P’. Memo Ext.PW-2/A was deposed to have been prepared. She deposes that she signed the memo in red circle ‘B’. Pants Ext.P-1, deposed by her to be the same. The pants were taken into possession in a cloth parcel and sealed with five seals of seal ‘P’. Memo Ext.PW-2/A was deposed to have been prepared. She deposes that she signed the memo in red circle ‘B’. Pants Ext.P-1, deposed by her to be the same. She further deposes that PW Jagdish was also present at that time. This witness proceeds to depose that her daughter had taken bath and thereafter she went to the school. While bathing, she found swelling on her private part. PW-13 further deposes that she did not disclose the said fact to the police since her husband was not at home. On the return of her husband, she went to the house of Ward Member Kamla Devi and disclosed the incident to her. In her cross-examination, she admits to be correct that the hand pump is located in the middle of the village. She also admits the suggestion put to her that the villagers used to go invariably to collect water from the hand pump in the morning. She has also deposed in her cross-examination that when she went at the spot, she found one bus at the spot and driver was in the said bus. However, the conductor was not in the bus. PW-13 also deposes that she would not have reported the matter to the police, if the accused and her sister Taro Devi had not misbehaved with her. She also admits the suggestion put to her that the prosecutrix went to school on that day at about 8.00 a.m. 21. Prosecutrix was examined as PW-14. On certain questions, having been put to her by the Court, to ascertain her capacity/intelligibility, to, which she returned intelligible answers, constrained the learned trial Court to declare her to be a competent witness. Accordingly, she came to be examined without oath. In her examination-in-chief, she deposes that she is studying in 6th Class. She deposes that she does not remember the year, however, it was 8th day of July, she went to fetch the water from the hand pump. This witness further deposes that she met the accused there, present in the Court and he had allured her for showing the boats to her. However, she deposes that the accused took her in the bushes. She continues to depose that the accused asked her to open her pants, however, she refused. This witness further deposes that she met the accused there, present in the Court and he had allured her for showing the boats to her. However, she deposes that the accused took her in the bushes. She continues to depose that the accused asked her to open her pants, however, she refused. PW-14 (the prosecutrix) further deposes that the accused gagged her mouth and also opened his pants. The accused was chewing tobacco. After opening his pants, the accused came over to her. She continues to depose that she would narrate the things to her mother. She proceeds to depose that she felt wetness on her thighs and that the accused started touching her thighs. Subsequently, she ran from the spot. She deposes that she felt pain in her private parts and narrated the incident to her mother and had shown her private parts to her. In her cross-examination, she deposes that the conductor was sitting in the front seat of the bus. However, she did not disclose anything about the incident to the said conductor. She, in her cross-examination, also admits the fact of her father being away from the house on the fateful day. She concedes to the fact of hers having taken bath at about 7.00 a.m. immediately after the occurrence. However, she deposes that her mother did not touch her body when she took bath nor was she present when she had taken bath. 22. PW-15 (ASI Pradeep Kumar), deposes that on 10.7.2010, Kanta Devi came along with her husband and daughter (prosecutrix) and reported the matter of eve teasing and of mis-behaviour with their daughter by the accused, on which, he prepared rapat Ext.PW-8/A. Report was sent for registration of the case through HHC Gian Chand and the prosecutrix was referred for medical examination on moving application Ext.PW-4/A. He continues to depose that the prosecutrix was medically examined and MLC Ext.PW-4/B was obtained. This witness visited the spot on 11.7.2010 and after verification of the spot, prepared spot map Ext.PW-15/A. He further deposes that he took into possession pants of the prosecutrix Ext.P-1 in the presence of witnesses, namely, Jagdish and Kamla vide memo Ext.PW-2/A and sealed with five seals of seal ‘P’ in a parcel. Sample seal Ext.PW-15/B was taken separately. Pants Ext.P-1 is the same and he deposes that he deposited it with MHC, Police Station, Sadar on 11.7.2010. Sample seal Ext.PW-15/B was taken separately. Pants Ext.P-1 is the same and he deposes that he deposited it with MHC, Police Station, Sadar on 11.7.2010. He proceeds to depose that the pants Ext.P-1 was sent for examination to FSL, Junga. In his cross-examination, he denies the suggestion put to him that Ext.P-1 was given to him in Police Post. He deposes that he did not put any identification Mark on Ext.P-1 in the name of the prosecutrix. Self stated that Ext.P-1 is identifiable and is identifiable from yellow piece of cloth inside it. This witness denies the suggestion put to him to be incorrect that he made a false case against the accused in connivance with the complainant party and he recorded the statements of witnesses at his own and not as per versions given by them. He feigns ignorance as to what distance the house of Meena is situated from the house of Kanta Devi. 23. PW-16 (H.C. Meena Kumari) deposes that, on 13.9.2011, the investigation of the present case was handed over to her. She deposes that she visited the house of the prosecutrix and recorded the statements of Kanta Devi and the prosecutrix. In her cross-examination, she deposes that the prosecutrix and Kanta Devi did not given any statement that the occurrence was witnessed by some one. She denies the suggestion put to her to be incorrect that she recorded statements of the witnesses in the Police Station and not in the house. 24. The medical evidence on record, comprised in Ext.PW-4/B, clinchingly proved the deposition of PW-4, underscores the following facts:- The revelation in Ext.PW-4/B of labia majora and labia minora having been, on examination of the person of the prosecutrix by PW-4 found to be swollen, as also, her hymen being torn, construed in tandem with the fact that PW-4 noticed signs of physical violence in as much, as, injuries No.1 and 2 having been opined by PW-4 to be possible, if a person tries to rape or rapes a girl of nine years, which ultimately, led PW-4 to render an opinion, that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, constrains this Court to conclude that the deposition of PW-4 squarely and forthrightly clinches the conclusion that the prosecutrix had been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. Even though PW-4 in her cross-examination deposes that redness on the private parts of the victim can be caused by scratching or rubbing of the said private part by the victim herself or by her mother at the time of bath or otherwise. However, given the deposition of the prosecutrix, that, she had on her own taken bath and that her mother PW-13 Kanta Devi was neither present there nor she touched her body, overrules the factum of redness on the private part of the prosecutrix, as noticed by PW-4, to have been manipulated or having been begotten at the instance of the prosecutrix. Moreso, the factum of Ext.PW-4/B divulging the fact of hymen of the prosecutrix being torn underlines and underscores the conclusion of hers having been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix was aged 11 years at the time of the commission of the offence. She, on being queried by the Court to gauge her intelligibility, and on the answers meted out by her to the queries being gauged by the learned trial Court to be intelligible led the Court to conclude qua hers being a competent witness. She, consequently, came to be examined without oath. She in her deposition has unequivocally deposed that on the fateful day she was taken by the accused to the bushes. She has categorically deposed that accused asked her to open her pants and on refusal he gagged her mouth and thereafter he opened his pants and also opened her pants. After opening the pants she deposes that he came over her. He was chewing tobacco. She felt some wetness on her thighs. He started touching her thighs. Thereafter she deposes that he ran away from the spot and on completion of the act she felt some pain in her private parts. The deposition of the prosecutrix is not imbued with any noticeable tinge of unnaturalness or of tutoring, hence, when her testimony has come to be corroborated by the deposition of the mother of the prosecutrix PW-13 Kanta Devi, who, in tandem with the deposition of the prosecutrix, has adduced unflinching evidence conveying the factum of the accused having perpetrated the act on the person of the prosecutrix sequels a conclusion that she had narrated a credible version bereft of tutoring qua the occurrence. The mere fact that she omitted to disclose the occurrence to the conductor of the bus, whom she noticed to be occupying the bus, after the completion of the incident, would not rob either the efficacy nor the truth of the version articulated by the prosecutrix, especially with hers being the victim of the crime and of a tender age was not expected to narrate the incident to a stranger. Consequently, no capital or no leverage can be derived by the counsel for the appellant, for any omission on the part of the prosecutrix to narrate the incident to the conductor of the bus. As a concomitant also when the narration qua the incident by the prosecutrix came to be promptly revealed to her mother and is deposed in tandem by the prosecutrix as well as by the mother, it does not acquire any taint of afterthought or concoction. The prosecution has also been able to prove by the depositions of the prosecutrix and of PW-13, the mother of the prosecutrix, the identity of the accused to be the person who perpetrated the forcible sexual intercourse on the person of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix on her intimating or having apprised her mother the details of the occurrence, had also besides divulged to PW-13 her mother that she could recognize the perpetrator of the offence in consequence whereto, PW-13, along with the prosecutrix, had found the accused near the ‘Badd’ (Baniyan) tree. On his being noticed at that place, he was identified by the prosecutrix, so also the accused was identified by the prosecutrix, in Court. Consequently, when the accused has been established by reliable and credible testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by PW-13 her mother, to be the accused, renders open an obvious conclusion that the forcible sexual intercourse was committed on the person of the prosecutrix, as proved by PW-4, by the appellant. 25. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant has submitted that initially a case under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with the police. Therefore, he contends that the initial narration of the incident when omitted to record the factum of an offence under Section 376 IPC, having come to be constituted, the subsequent implication of the accused under Section 376 IPC, is, wholly concocted, invented and is unreliable. Therefore, he contends that the initial narration of the incident when omitted to record the factum of an offence under Section 376 IPC, having come to be constituted, the subsequent implication of the accused under Section 376 IPC, is, wholly concocted, invented and is unreliable. However, the above contention has no worth in the face of the fact that when it has come to be unequivocally voiced by the aforesaid discussion, that, not only the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, rather it was the accused who has perpetrated the said act on the person of the victim/prosecutrix. Consequently, the initial registration of an offence under Section 354 IPC and, its, subsequent replacement by the commission of offence upon the victim under Section 376 IPC, at, the instance of the accused, cannot be said to be, imbued with any vice of concoction or afterthought. 26. Even if, some delay, has occurred in lodging the F.I.R., qua the incident, in as much, as, when it occurred on 8.7.2010 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 10.7.2010. Nonetheless, the mere belated lodging of the F.I.R., would not perse render the prosecution version to be wholly prevaricated or untruthful, for the reason that the delay, if, founded upon, a sound explanation, as, the delay in the instant case is, would render the delay un-worthwhile or insignificant. The reason for the delay, as attributed by the prosecution, is, comprised in the fact of, as deposed by PW-13 Kanta Devi of the father of the prosecutrix, being not available, in the house, on the fateful day, however, on his arriving home, the F.I.R was promptly lodged. Even otherwise, the mother of the prosecutrix PW Kanta Devi having along with PW- Meena Kumari in quick succession to the occurrence visited the house of the sister of the accused (Taro Devi) and also proceeded to the house of Kamla Devi (ward member), who, however, was not found in the house. Consequently, the aforesaid concerted measures as undertaken by PW-Kanta Devi to voice her grievances before the ward member, as also, before the sister of the accused Taro Devi, comprise acts which do not garner, a, conclusion that she as well as the prosecutrix were reticent from 8.7. 2010, till, the lodging of the F.I.R. on 10.07.2010, hence, the voicing of the grievance by them only in the F.I.R., is, engendered by an afterthought, concoction or pre-meditation. 2010, till, the lodging of the F.I.R. on 10.07.2010, hence, the voicing of the grievance by them only in the F.I.R., is, engendered by an afterthought, concoction or pre-meditation. Moreso, when delay has been satisfactorily explained, it is to be concluded that it does not attract fatality to the prosecution case. Even otherwise, the import of the suggestion put to PW-13, the mother of the prosecutrix, by the learned defence counsel, portraying the fact that she would have omitted to narrate the incident to the police in case the sister of the accused had not misbehaved is personificatory of an admission by the defence of the fact of the incident having occurred on the fateful day. Moreover the said acquiescence or admission of the guilt of the accused magnifyingly surges forth from the suggestion put to PW-13 by the learned defence counsel that the victim/aggrieved had taken to call the Panchayat and had wanted the accused to apologize. Even though an answer in the affirmative has ensued from PW-13 to the said suggestion, yet, it does not but convey the fact of it having been made to the aforesaid only to convey that as a matter of fact the incident on the fateful day had occurred. Even otherwise, the admissions in the affirmative ensuing from the mother of the prosecutrix during the course of suggestions put to her during her cross-examination would not render open the conclusion that the incident had not assumed such proportions of enormity and magnitude as spelt out by the prosecution, rather, the said inference is dispelled by the factum of PW-4 voicing in her testimony, of the prosecutrix with her hymen having been noticed to torn and her private parts displaying swellings, hence, communicating the factum of hers having been subjected to sexual intercourse, by no person other than the accused, especially, when his identify has been reinforcingly corroborated by the testimony of PW-13. 27. On appreciation of the evidence it is imminent and reinforcingly clear that the accused, is, guilty of the offence and that the learned trial Court in coming to appreciate the evidence on record had neither mis-appreciated the prosecution evidence nor had omitted to appreciate the relevant and apposite material on record. Obviously, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence does not warrant interference. Obviously, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence does not warrant interference. As a result, appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is affirmed and maintained.