JUDGMENT AND ORDER : S. Serto, J. 1. This is a criminal appeal filed by the prosecutrix and her aunty (the complainant in the FIR case) against the acquittal judgment and order dated 16/10/2015 of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kohima passed in G.R. Case No. 106 of 2014 which was instituted on the charge sheet submitted by the Kohima (North) P.S. on their case No. 32/2014, under section 376/506/342/511 of IPC wherein, the accused Mr. Samrat Prasad was acquitted. 2. The facts and circumstances leading to this appeal are as follows:- On 23/05/2014, one Ms. Vilanuo Kelie-o of Kohima village lodged an FIR in the North Police Station, Kohima stating that her niece, aged about 20 years, was kidnapped by one Samrat Prasad, Constable/Driver, MT Branch attached to PHQ, Nagaland while she was on her way to school on 16/05/2014, at about 08:30 A.M. to 09:00 A.M. from Don Bosco area, Kohima and took her to Orchid Hotel at New Market, Kohima and committed rape on her, and thereafter the said accused threatened the victim that if she ever reveals to anybody about the incident he would kill her and her family. Following the report, an FIR case being, "the Kohima (North) P.S. Case No. 32/2014'' under Section 376/506/342/511 of IPC was registered by the Police station, and the accused Samrat Prasad was arrested on that day itself and investigation was conducted. After completion of the investigation, Kohima P.S submitted a charge sheet against the accused under section 376 (1) and Section 506 of IPC. After hearing the prosecution and the defence counsel, the Court framed the charge under Section 376(1) and Section 506 of IPC against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution thereafter produced and examined 7 PW's including the prosecutrix, I.O of the case and the Medical Officer who examined the prosecutrix. No defence witness was produced by the accused. After considering the evidence in the record and after hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel, the Court acquitted the accused of the charge against him under section 376 & section 506 of IPC on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused and prosecution had completely failed to connect the accused with the alleged rape. After considering the evidence in the record and after hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel, the Court acquitted the accused of the charge against him under section 376 & section 506 of IPC on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused and prosecution had completely failed to connect the accused with the alleged rape. The Court also acquitted the accused of the charge against him under section 506 of IPC on the ground that there is no acceptable evidence except the self serving statement of the prosecutrix which the Court is not willing to accept. 3. I have heard Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the two appellants. I have also heard Mr. K. Wotsa, learned P.P., Nagaland on behalf of the State and also Mr. Keleviho, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the accused/respondent and Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel who supplemented the submission of the learned defence counsel. Submission of Learned Counsel of the Appellants. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the accused admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix the only issue that was or is to be determined is whether the prosecutrix willingly and with her consent had sexual intercourse with the accused or was she forced by the accused against her will. According to the learned counsel the version of the victim/prosecutrix that the accused by force and against her will had sexual intercourse with her in a room at a hotel is supported by the evidence of her boy friend (PW.2), evidence of her mother (PW.3), evidence of a friend of the accused (PW.4), the evidence of the doctor who examined her (PW.5) and evidence of the I.O of the case. In support of his submission, the learned counsel submitted that PW.2 who is the boyfriend of the prosecutrix stated in his deposition that at about 11:00 A.M. to 12 noon of the same day i.e. on 16/05/2014 while he was playing cricket he received a phone call from the prosecutrix and was told that she had been raped. In support of his submission, the learned counsel submitted that PW.2 who is the boyfriend of the prosecutrix stated in his deposition that at about 11:00 A.M. to 12 noon of the same day i.e. on 16/05/2014 while he was playing cricket he received a phone call from the prosecutrix and was told that she had been raped. Disclosure of such news by a girl that too to her boyfriend with whom she must have nursed a certain amount of dream to marry in future could not have been possibly driven by any motive or intension but by an emotional outburst due to or out of extreme distress and frustration triggered or caused by violation of her privacy and chastity by the accused against her will, and with the hope of finding some solace or a shoulder to cry on. With corroborating evidence such as this, there is no reason why the evidence of the prosecutrix should have been doubted and brushed aside by the learned Session Judge, submitted the learned counsel. The learned counsel further submitted that mother of the prosecutrix (PW.3) also stated in her deposition that on the same day i.e. on 16/05/2014 her daughter (prosecutrix) had come to her and started crying and at the same time disclosed to her that she had been raped by a person, and she found the right cheek of her daughter reddish in colour and her nose a little swollen. Only the truth that she was raped could have given the courage to tell her mother about the same and nothing else. Had it been that she had sexual intercourse with the accused with her own consent there is no reason at all why she should have chosen to disclose to her mother about it. Besides, the physical injuries/hurt found on the prosecutrix by her mother, are nothing but are signs that she had been raped by the accused. Therefore, evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix corroborates with the evidence given by the prosecutrix and other witnesses. Besides, the physical injuries/hurt found on the prosecutrix by her mother, are nothing but are signs that she had been raped by the accused. Therefore, evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix corroborates with the evidence given by the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The learned counsel also submitted that evidence given by PW.4 who is a friend of the accused also supported the case of the prosecution that the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix in the Orchid Hotel on the day and time it was stated by the prosecutrix, because, the PW stated in his deposition that he was requested by the accused to book a room in the hotel for his relatives and later on the accused came and told him that he had sex with a girl. The learned counsel went on and submitted that the deposition of the doctor who examined the prosecutrix in connection with the case also supported the case of the prosecution. In support of his submission, he quoted the statement of the Doctor given in his deposition which is as follows:- "Since the victim have been examined after few days she had already taken bath for several times as well as her dresses were already changed however in my examination I found some tear mark on her private part and her external vaginal orifice was found of recent injury and found her external vaginal wall at 7 o' clock position." After having quoted the above statement the learned counsel further stated that this statement of the Doctor shows nothing but the fact that the prosecutrix had been raped, but by brushing aside all these evidences given by the prosecution witnesses the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, therefore, has committed serious error in his appreciation of the facts and circumstance supported by evidence and the relevant laws. As such, the judgment and order which acquitted the accused deserves to be overruled. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that assuming that the evidence given by the other witnesses are not admissible or does not support the prosecution case, even then based on the evidence given by the prosecutrix alone which is without any contradiction and discrepancies therefore trustworthy, the accused can be held guilty of having committed the crime charged against him. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that assuming that the evidence given by the other witnesses are not admissible or does not support the prosecution case, even then based on the evidence given by the prosecutrix alone which is without any contradiction and discrepancies therefore trustworthy, the accused can be held guilty of having committed the crime charged against him. Learned counsel in support of his submission cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Madras High Court as follows: "In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raghubir Singh, (1992) 2 SCC 622 - it has been held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. In Md. Iqbal and Another vs. State of Jharkhand, 2013 (4) Crimes 1 SCC the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "Conviction can be based on sole evidence of prosecutrix." At para-14 of the judgment it was stated that there is no prohibition in law to convict the accused on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the law does not require that her statements be corroborated by the statements of other witness this is in conformity with section 53(a) and 114(A) of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras Court in the case of Kamaraju vs. Manikan as reported in 2013 (1) Crimes 235 (Mad) at para-24 held as follows:- "The law as it emerges on the issue is to the effect that statement of prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix, as no self respecting girl would level a false charge of rape against anyone by staking her own honor." Besides, the learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that as per the provision of section 114-A of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 whenever a question arises as to whether sexual intercourse between a men and women had occurred with or without the consent of the women if such women has stated in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, it has to be presumed that she did not consent. In conclusion, the learned counsel submitted that if sexual intercourse between the prosecutrix and the accused had taken place with the consent of the prosecutrix she would not have disclose about the incident to her mother, her boyfriend and to her aunty, the fact that she did so by putting all her future at stake and keeping aside all her natural inhibitions shows that her statement/evidence is genuine. 5. Submission of learned counsel of the accused In reply, the learned counsel for the accused defendant Mr. Keleviho submitted as follows:- That though the incident took place on 16/05/2014 the FIR was lodged only on 23/05/2015 i.e. after 7 days. This delay in filing FIR shows that the charge against the accused by the prosecutrix is after thought and should not have been entertained. Moreover, when the FIR was lodged it was with the charge of kidnapping and rape but later on kidnapping was dropped and the accused was charged under section 376 and 506 of the IPC. This inconsistency in the prosecution's case also makes the same not worthy of trust and besides, the girl was already an adult at that time, therefore, there is no reason why her aunty and not herself should have lodged the FIR. This also shows that the FIR was after consultation and afterthought, therefore, cannot be relied upon. Moreover, the complainant stated in her deposition that she had lodged the complaint as it was reported to her by her niece. This statement of the witness (PW. 1) shows that she had reported to the Police about the incident without confirming the truth about it. Therefore, the FIR itself is not worthy of trust. Moreover, the complainant stated in her deposition that she had lodged the complaint as it was reported to her by her niece. This statement of the witness (PW. 1) shows that she had reported to the Police about the incident without confirming the truth about it. Therefore, the FIR itself is not worthy of trust. That the prosecutrix has been of easy virtue and she had earlier also made the same kind of allegation against a petrol pump owner and it was settled amicably through negotiation. As such, her testimony cannot be trusted and relied upon. That in her telephonic conversation with her boyfriend the prosecutrix did not mention the name of the accused and the place of occurrence. If raped had really taken place she would have told the name of the accused and the place of occurrence. That the accused both in his statement given under section 164 and under section 301 of Cr. P.C had denied the charge against him and stated that the sexual intercourse that had taken place between him and the prosecutrix was with the consent of the later, therefore, in the absence of reliable evidence this statement of the accused has to be believed. That consent of a prosecutrix can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, the prosecutrix and the accused had gone together to the hotel and drunk alcohol together, and she did not shout or scream for help during the occurrence of the incident. All these shows that the prosecutrix had consented to the sexual intercourse. That in the FIR, it was stated that the prosecutrix was kidnapped and later on raped by the accused but the prosecutrix in her deposition stated that though she was not kidnapped she had told her family members that she was kidnapped as she was afraid. This contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix has rendered the evidence given by her unreliable. Therefore, accused could not have been convicted based on her evidence. That the PW. 4 came to know about the incident only from the lady Police Officer, therefore, he is not an eye witness to the incident, as such, his evidence does not help prosecution's case. Therefore, accused could not have been convicted based on her evidence. That the PW. 4 came to know about the incident only from the lady Police Officer, therefore, he is not an eye witness to the incident, as such, his evidence does not help prosecution's case. That the Doctor who was examined as PW.5 had stated that while he was examining the prosecutrix he was told by her that she and the accused are childhood friends and they had sexual relationship even before the incident. This statement of the Doctor shows that the prosecutrix and the accused were used to have sexual relationship, as such, accused was not likely to have committed rape on the prosecutrix. That the fact that no injury mark was found on the body of the victim by the Doctor who examined her shows that there was no struggle on the part of the prosecutrix while the incident took place. This in turn shows that no force was used by the accused on the prosecutrix. If the allegation of the prosecutrix that her cloths were removed forcibly and partly torn are true the cloths should have been produce in evidence, but since it was not done there is no basis to believe that the accused had done so . That if the prosecutrix had not consented she could have shouted or scream or even run away from the place of occurrence since the place of occurrence is a hotel and that too near public road. But none of these was done by the prosecutrix. And no body from the hotel was examined to proof that the prosecutrix had shouted or scream. All these goes to show that the sexual intercourse between the accused and the prosecutrix was consensual and not rape. That none of the evidence given by the PW's corroborated with the evidence given by the prosecutrix and moreover the evidence of the prosecutrix is full of contradictions or inconsistencies and discrepancies, therefore, it cannot be relied upon. As such, the learned Session Judge was right in acquitting the accused. That none of the evidence given by the PW's corroborated with the evidence given by the prosecutrix and moreover the evidence of the prosecutrix is full of contradictions or inconsistencies and discrepancies, therefore, it cannot be relied upon. As such, the learned Session Judge was right in acquitting the accused. Learned counsel cited the following cases in support of his submission:- (i) (2007) 6 SCC 465 , (ii) (2007) 12 SCC 57 , (iii) (1998) 6 SCC 420 , (iv) (1979) 4 SCC 319, (v) 1972 (1) SCC 246, (vi) 1971 (3) 436, (vii) 2013 (2) SCC 131 , (viii) 1973 (2) SCC 808 , and (ix) 1972 (4) SCC 594 . 6. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel supplemented submission of the learned defence counsel as follows:- In a case of rape where there are contradicting evidences the only helpful evidence is that of the Doctor. In this case, the Doctor who examined the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, the learned Session Judge was right in acquitting the accused. That the delay in filing FIR is fatal when the delay is not explain properly. In this case, the delay has not been explained properly, therefore, the FIR is not reliable. FIR being the very foundation or basis on which a criminal case is built, when it is not trustworthy or proved to be unreliable, the prosecution case naturally or automatically goes. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the place of occurrence is public place and near public road, therefore, if the prosecutrix was not a consenting party she would have shouted or scream and people would have heard her and rescued her. But the fact that she had not done so shows that she was a consenting party. Learned counsel added the following citations to what has been already cited before:- (i) 2013 (3) SCC 791 , (ii) 2007 (2) SCC 170 , and (iii) 2013 (9) SCC 113 . 7. Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel for the appellants, in reply submitted that the delay in filing FIR is not fatal if explained properly and cited the case as reported in 1996 (2) SCC 384 in support of his submission. According to the learned counsel, the delay has been explained by the evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix in her deposition given as PW. According to the learned counsel, the delay has been explained by the evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix in her deposition given as PW. 3 and the statement of the complainant in her deposition. Therefore, there is no reason to have any doubt on the FIR. Findings and Conclusions:- 8. From the evidence given by the prosecution and submissions of both the learned counsels representing the parties, it is clear that sexual intercourse between the accused and the prosecutrix had taken place on 16/05/2014 in a room at Orchid hotel. The only question to be determined, therefore, is whether sexual intercourse between the prosecutrix and the accused was consensual or was forced upon the prosecutrix by the accused. The contention of the appellants as can be gathered from the submission of their learned counsel is that there is no infirmity or discrepancy in the evidence given by the prosecutrix, therefore, even if it were to be assumed that there are no other evidence corroborating her evidence the accused can still be held guilty by relying on her evidence alone. On the other hand, the contention of the accused defendant as can be gathered from the submissions of both his learned counsels is that the evidence of the prosecutrix is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and infirmity, therefore, is not reliable, as such, unless it is corroborated by other evidence no conviction can be drawn up against the accused based on that alone. And that the other PW's besides not being eye witnesses none of the evidence given by them supported or corroborated the evidence given by the prosecutrix. Moreover, the fact that the FIR was lodged after 7 days shows that the charge against the accused was concocted afterthought, therefore, it cannot be relied upon. 9. Findings and conclusion on the point of delay in filing the FIR: PW.1 who lodged the FIR stated that she being the guardian of the prosecutrix the relatives were of the opinion that they should wait for her return from Siliguri where she had gone for some work before such decision like lodging of FIR is taken. This explanation or statement given by the PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence given by PW.NO 3(mother of the prosecutrix). This explanation or statement given by the PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence given by PW.NO 3(mother of the prosecutrix). It is stated by her in her deposition that her daughter was brought up by her grandmother and the incident happened during the time she was staying with her aunty (the complainant), and that her daughter refused to disclose the name of the accused stating that she will do so only after her aunty returns. The prosecutrix in her deposition as PW.8 also mentioned that she did not disclose the name of the accused to her mother, as she intended to do so only when her aunty returns from Siliguri. Without knowing the name of the accused an FIR could not have been lodge by anybody. Further, the complainant being the guardian of the prosecutrix at the relevant time it was quite natural for the prosecutrix, her mother and the relatives to have waited for her before taking any decision including lodging of FIR. In the life's circumstances of the prosecutrix it is even more likely and probable that other members of the family would have hesitated to take any major decision on the matter in the absence of the guardian aunty (complainant). Such decision taken by the prosecutrix and her relatives is quite normal in the given circumstances. In the evidence of the prosecutrix and her mother it was revealed that her parents were divorced even before she was born and both of them had remarried different persons since then. As such, she was brought up by her maternal grandmother. It is also shown in evidence that she was staying with her aunty (complainant/PW.1) at that time. In such a situation or circumstances, it is not unnatural that the mother of the prosecutrix and relatives should have waited for her aunty (complainant/P.W.1) who was her guardian at that relevant time. In view of these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the delay in filing/lodging of FIR has been explained properly. The reason for the Courts in being cautious in relying upon FIRs which are lodged after certain amount of delay is to make sure that there is no embellishment or concocted story added or implanted while filing such FIRs. The reason for the Courts in being cautious in relying upon FIRs which are lodged after certain amount of delay is to make sure that there is no embellishment or concocted story added or implanted while filing such FIRs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had ruled in catena of cases that delay in lodging FIR per-se cannot be a reason for discarding the case of the prosecution if the delay is explained satisfactorily. Till today, the same principle has been followed by the Courts in this country. In this regard, what the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71 at para-12 of the judgment is a pointer and the same is instructive. Therefore, the relevant portions are given herein below:- "12. 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 cour t 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 prosecution case." In the case of Satpal Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 714 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court encountered and considered the delay in filing the FIR by 4(four) months after commission of the offence. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by following its earlier judgments came to the conclusion that the delay in lodging FIR in sexual offence has to be considered with different yardstick. The observation and conclusion drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case are given herein below:- "14. In a rape case the prosecutrix remains worried about her future. She remains in traumatic state of mind. The family of the victim generally shows reluctance to go to the police station because of society's attitude towards such a woman. It casts doubts and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathies with her. In a rape case the prosecutrix remains worried about her future. She remains in traumatic state of mind. The family of the victim generally shows reluctance to go to the police station because of society's attitude towards such a woman. It casts doubts and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathies with her. Family remains concerned about its honour and reputation of the prosecutrix. After only having a cool thought is it possible for the family to lodge a complaint in sexual offences. (vide Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P. and State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh). 15. This Court has consistently highlighted the reasons, objects and means or prompt lodging of FIR. Delay in lodging FIR more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an after thought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Thus, FIR is to be filed more promptly and if there is any delay, the prosecution must furnish a satisfactory explanation for the same for the reason that in case the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant/informant is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety. (vide State of A.P. vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao). 16. However, no straitjacket formula can be laid down in this regard. In case of sexual offences, the criteria may be different altogether. As honour of the family is involved, its members have to decide whether to take the matter to the Court or not. In such a fact situation, near relations of the prosecutrix may take time as to what course of action should be adopted. Thus, delay is bound to occur. This Court has always taken judicial notice of the fact that: "Ordinarily the family of the victim would not intend to get a stigma attached to the victim. Delay in lodging the first information report in case of this nature is a normal phenomenon." (vide Satyapal vs. State of Haryana SCC p.641, para 21). 17. In State of H.P. vs. Prem Singh, this Court considered the issue at length and observed as under (SCC p. 421, para 6). "6. Delay in lodging the first information report in case of this nature is a normal phenomenon." (vide Satyapal vs. State of Haryana SCC p.641, para 21). 17. In State of H.P. vs. Prem Singh, this Court considered the issue at length and observed as under (SCC p. 421, para 6). "6. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There are several factors which weight in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition-bound society prevalent in India, more particularly rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR." 18. Thus, in view of the above, the delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences has to be considered with a different yardstick. If the instant case is examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained." In this case, the facts and circumstance stated above which are nothing but from the evidence given by the PW. 1 (Complainant), PW.3 (Mother) & PW.8 (Prosecutrix). The explanation given for the delay in filing the FIR is natural and there appears to be no embellishment or addition of concocted stories in the FIR itself. Therefore, this Court find no reason to discard the case of the prosecution on this ground. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also had dismissed some cases on the ground of delay but not only because of the fact that there was delay in filing the FIR but because of the unsatisfactory explanation given for the same. The learned counsel for the accused had cited the following cases, Rajesh Patel vs. State of Jharkhand, (2003) 3 SCC 791 and Ramdas and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170 . I have gone through the two cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the case of the prosecution in both the cases because of the unsatisfactory explanation given for the delay in lodging the FIRs. Therefore, delay in filing or lodging FIR per-se cannot be the reason for discarding the case of the prosecution, especially in rape case. I have gone through the two cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the case of the prosecution in both the cases because of the unsatisfactory explanation given for the delay in lodging the FIRs. Therefore, delay in filing or lodging FIR per-se cannot be the reason for discarding the case of the prosecution, especially in rape case. It is only when delay is not explain properly and convincingly that the case of the prosecution can be dismiss. 10. Now I shall take up the issue i.e. as to whether the testimony of the prosecutrix is corroborated by the evidence given by the other prosecution witnesses or not, and if it is not, can the accused be convicted on her testimony alone. As stated, there is no dispute or denying from the side of the accused that sexual intercourse had taken place between him and the prosecutrix on that day, time and place. The only question is whether it was consensual or it was forced upon the prosecutrix. From the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW.8) and that of her mother (PW.3) and her aunty (complainant/PW. 1), it is clear that she and the accused were immediate neighbours and grew up together, therefore friends. It is also clear from the testimony of the prosecutrix that she had gone out together with the accused on one occasion even by missing her class. It is also clear from evidence that she had gone out with the accused willingly on that day the incident took place, but at the same time, from her testimony it shows that initially she was not sure of the place where the accused was taking her. However, she willingly went with him and reached the destination where the incident took place is revealed in evidence. It is also clear from her testimony that the accused had brought three canned beers and she finished one and took a few sips from the second canned beer. What happened between them from thereafter is the point of contention. The only way to ascertain whether consensual sexual relationship had taken place or rape had taken place can only be gathered from the circumstances which precede, attended and followed the incident. As stated above, the prosecutrix in her own testimony stated that she had willingly gone with the accused and she had canned beer with him. The only way to ascertain whether consensual sexual relationship had taken place or rape had taken place can only be gathered from the circumstances which precede, attended and followed the incident. As stated above, the prosecutrix in her own testimony stated that she had willingly gone with the accused and she had canned beer with him. According to her, it was only when she told him to go ahead as she was calling her boy friend to pick her up that the accused closed the door and suddenly pushed her to the bed, touched her breast and other parts of her body and proceeded to commit rape on her, and when she resisted he gave her a slap and warned her if she did not cooperate. Thereafter, he tore her clothes and overpowered her and committed rape on her. She also stated that she could not resist the sexual advance of the accused as she was overpowered by him. After the rape was committed on her she was warned not to report or disclose to anybody about it. But soon after he left, she called her boy friend over the mobile phone and told him what happened to her and requested him to come and pick her up, and when she was doing so the accused came back and snatched the mobile phone and scolded her for not complying with his warning and warned her again that if she reported the matter her younger sister of 2 years old could even be in trouble. Thereafter, he threw a note of Rs. 100/- on her and left. From there she went straight to her mother with whom she had not been staying with and disclosed what happen to her. But she did not disclose the name of the person who committed rape on her and did not do so in spite of her mother's query about the same. Nothing was asked in the cross-examination which would discredit her testimony regarding the incident. In fact there was no rebuttal at all from the side of the accused on the facts deposed by the prosecutrix. The fact that she disclosed about the incident to her mother is supported by her mother in her testimony given as PW.3. Nothing was asked in the cross-examination which would discredit her testimony regarding the incident. In fact there was no rebuttal at all from the side of the accused on the facts deposed by the prosecutrix. The fact that she disclosed about the incident to her mother is supported by her mother in her testimony given as PW.3. The prosecutrix's statement that she was slapped by the accused and she was forced to have sex with him under threat is also supported by the statement of her mother who as PW.3 stated that when her daughter i.e. the prosecutrix came to inform her about the incident she saw her right cheek reddish in colour and her nose a little swollen. The fact that she rang up to her boyfriend and told him regarding what happened to her is also confirmed by her boyfriend in his testimony given as PW.2. Further her testimony was also corroborated by the testimony of the complainant, her aunty who testified as PW.1. In her statement as PW.1 the complainant stated that before she lodged the FIR she inquired thoroughly about the incident from her niece and it was only when she made sure that it was genuine she lodged the FIR. The Doctor who was examined as PW.5 stated that since she examined the victim after few days from the date of occurrence her dress were already changed and she had also already taken bath several times. However, he found some tear marks on her private part and also her external vaginal orifice of recent injury. He also stated that he found the external vaginal wall of the prosecutrix was at 7'O clock position. The Doctor's testimony is more or less the same with what he had recorded when he examined the victim. The same was exhibited as Exhibit P.2 (1) and it is reproduced herein below:- "Performa for examination and report on rape victim. M.L.C. No:- MLC-250 Dated 22-5-14 Ref. Requisition from:- Women cell of North P.S Vide FIR No. :- Dated 22-5-14 Name of the individual:- Gloria Father's/Guardian name:- Prem Pradhan Sex:- Female Cast:- Occupation:- Student Age:- 20 years (as stated by Police) and 20 years (as stated by victim) Address:- L. Khle Kohima Village Marital status:- Unmarried Place of examination:- Emergency room NHAK Name and No. of Police who brought and identified:- S.I. Levinou along with party. Examination in presence of:- Levinuo Nyuwi i/c Women Cell, Kohima Date and time of examination:- 22-05-2014 at 9:10 P.M. Consent of the examination:- Yes Marks of identification:- (a) A small black mole in this front of the neck on left side History of the case as given by police (including date & time of complaint):- alleged rape by neighbours on 16/05/2014. She reported to Women Cell on 22/05/2014 at 8:30 P.M. Relative position of the victim and accused at the material moment (standing/lying etc.):- Lying Whether she struggled and cried for help:- Yes Last date of menstruation:- 22-04-2014 Whether it was conscious or under the influence of any intoxicant prior at the time of alleged assault:- under the influence of alchocl (11/2 cane of beer) Any complaint of pain, discomfort during walking, urination and defecation:- presently no complaint . Clothing it changed-when :- Yes, same date Whether bath was taken-when - do- Whether motions and urnine passe-when -Yes, same date Was the alleged accused known to the victim prior to the incident:- childhood friend. (a) General : Height : 5:00 feet. Weight:- 48 Kgs Body build:- Average Mental state-cool/ calm/excited/depressed:- clam but depressed look Gait: normal/difficulty in walking:- Normal Condition of the clothes for; i. Any sign of struggle:- she had already changed her clothing on 16/5/14 ii. Presence of stain:- -do- iii. Any hair, fibre, mud, grass etc.:- -do- Details of injuries on the body, if any:- O/E sign of recent injury at 7 O'Clock position in external vaginal orifice. (b) Genitals: Public haris-length, matted, foreign body etc.:- No foreign body found Vulva-for any injury, discharge etc.:- 7 O'Clock position Hymen-intact/elastic/torn (fresh or old):- Torn (old) Vaginal-admits one/two/three fingers:- 2(two) Rugae of vaginal wall-distinct/not distinct:- partially distinct (c) Laboratory Examination:- Vaginal swab and smear (for sperm, V.D. etc.):- old case, Not done. Nail cutting & nail scrapping:- Blood and urine:- Adirce Opinion: 1. Evidence of recent sexual intercourse - Yes 2. Accustomed to sexual intercourse - Yes 3. Sign of struggle/use of force - No 4. Presence of sexually transmitted diseases-She as to undergo further test examination. 5. Any other:- UPT-Negative Leucor rhoea (foul whitish discharged found) Place:- NHAK Signature:- Date:- 22/05/2014 Name of Dr. Evidence of recent sexual intercourse - Yes 2. Accustomed to sexual intercourse - Yes 3. Sign of struggle/use of force - No 4. Presence of sexually transmitted diseases-She as to undergo further test examination. 5. Any other:- UPT-Negative Leucor rhoea (foul whitish discharged found) Place:- NHAK Signature:- Date:- 22/05/2014 Name of Dr. Peiveso Khalo Designation:- M.O. (Seal) Remarks of the Head of Deptt.(if any): Signature:- (Seal)" From the evidence on the Doctor it can be gathered that the prosecutrix had signs of having had sex recently and there were some injury marks on her private part due to the same. This is the finding despite the fact that the prosecutrix was examined after 5 to 6 days from the date of the occurrence i.e. 16/05/2014. In view of this it would be wrong to jump to conclusion that the prosecutrix did not struggle or resisted at all hence it was a consensual sex. Rather,the fact that some injury marks were found on the private part of the prosecutrix in spite of the fact that she was examined only after 5 to 6 days from the day of the incident supports her case that sex was forced upon her and she did not consented to it. 11. In view what has been stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the testimony of the prosecutrix that she had been raped is corroborated by the evidence given by the other PW's. And even if it were to be assumed that there is no other evidence that corroborates the evidence of the prosecutrix, since her testimony is without any contradiction, inconsistency or discrepancy on material facts and not rebutted by the defence it is reliable and sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offences charged against him. It is true that there are some minor discrepancies but they are not sufficient enough or important enough to cast a doubt on the testimony of the prosecutrix. 12. It is true that there are some minor discrepancies but they are not sufficient enough or important enough to cast a doubt on the testimony of the prosecutrix. 12. In a conservative society like ours unless driven by truth, extreme distress and frustration coupled with anger and, a desire to find a shoulder to cry on, a girl who is in love with a boy, therefore, in all probability nurturing a certain amount of dream or hope to marry him in future would not have the courage to inform or disclose to him that she had been rapped because doing so would mean not only putting all her future at stake but inviting social stigma and shame. But in this case, the prosecutrix, knowing fully well the consequences and yet telling her boy friend can only mean that her privacy had been violated and that had made her so emotionally distressed and frustrated, therefore, she was no longer mindful of losing her future and of attracting social stigma and shame but to tell the truth to her lover. Further, from the life story of the prosecutrix one can imagine that she would not have had so much attachment with her mother. But that day she went straight to her and told her what happen to her. This shows the natural instinct of a daughter towards her mother when suddenly faced with such crisis or calamity. If the sexual relationship had taken place with her consent there was no reason for her to inform her boyfriend and her mother. It is most improbable that a girl in our society would do such a thing. 13. The submission that she is of easy virtue and there was an occasion earlier also when she had accused a petrol pump owner of having committed such crime against her and, the same was resolved amicably, therefore, her complaint against the present accused also should not be given so much credence does not in the opinion of this court, seem to hold water as no evidence had been produce by the accused in support of the same. Even if it is proof that she has been that kind of a person that does not matter since it has been sufficiently proved that she had been forced by the accused to have sex with him against her will. Even if it is proof that she has been that kind of a person that does not matter since it has been sufficiently proved that she had been forced by the accused to have sex with him against her will. Character of the victim does not matter as forcing of sexual intercourse against her will or consent would still amount to rape irrespective of her moral standard. Further, the argument or plea that she was friendly with the accused and there had been occasions earlier when they have had such kind of relationship does not in any way support the case of the accused. Because even if they have had that kind of relationship that does not give the accused the license to force sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix any time and anywhere he chooses. 14. Moreover, the fact that the prosecutrix remained unchanged or unmoved even after 7(seven) days i.e. from the date of the incident to the time her aunty came back home and went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint and, even went through the examination of the Doctor, and also faced the rigours of the whole process of prosecution shows that her complaint can only be genuine and not concocted. The accused did not impute or even suggest any motive on the prosecutrix which would have driven her to bring such complaint against him. In fact there is also nothing in evidence which is palpable and from which it can be inferred that there was some other motive which made the prosecutrix to bring such case against him. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that nothing but the truth could have only compelled the prosecutrix to complaint against the accused of having committed rape on her. 15. The argument forwarded by the learned counsel of the accused that the place of occurrence is situated near public road, therefore, if the sexual intercourse was not consensual the prosecutrix could have shouted or scream and any body who were nearby would have heard her and rescued her does not seem to be a sound argument in the given fact situation of the case. According to the prosecutrix she considered the accused as her own brother and she did not expect such kind of act from him. According to the prosecutrix she considered the accused as her own brother and she did not expect such kind of act from him. The fact that after they have spent quite some time chatting with each other and enjoying canned beer together she told the accused to go ahead as she was going to call her boyfriend to pick her up shows that she was unsuspecting and off guard when suddenly the accused made the sexual advance. Faced with that kind of situation, reaction of every women may not be the same. Some may shout and scream or some may quietly resist the same .It is not necessarily that every women will react with shouting and screaming. The way how people react to a situation or circumstance differs from person to person. Therefore, we cannot generalise how in a given situation one would have reacted. Even if the prosecutrix had shouted or scream there is no guarantee that she would have been heard as the place of occurrence was in a room. Besides, the hotel is stated to be nearby a public road. The public road may be a busy and noisy one since it is stated to be inside the town. In that case, even if the prosecutrix had shouted chances of being not heard cannot be ruled out. Moreover, one cannot ignore the fact that the prosecutrix was told by the accused to Co-operate under threat and she was even slapped. In that circumstance of imminent violence one can not expect the prosecutrix to shout and scream and resist the sexual assault. In fact the prosecutrix in her statement given under section 164 of CRPC had stated that she had shouted but no one was there. 16. The evidence of the prosecutrix was not seriously confronted or countered during the cross examination. From her answers in the cross examination there is nothing which would even make her testimony doubtful or less credible. Moreover, no defence witness was examined to rebut or discredit the evidence of the prosecution or to prove the innocence of the accused. 17. The charge against the accused was framed under section 376(1) and 506 of Indian Penal code. From her answers in the cross examination there is nothing which would even make her testimony doubtful or less credible. Moreover, no defence witness was examined to rebut or discredit the evidence of the prosecution or to prove the innocence of the accused. 17. The charge against the accused was framed under section 376(1) and 506 of Indian Penal code. Section 376(1) of IPC reads as follows; Section 376(1) "whoever, except in the cases provided for by subsection (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the judgment, imposed sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. The crime or offence for which punishment is provided under the above given section of IPC is given at section 375 of the same code. The same is given below:- "375. Rape-A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions: Firstly-Against her will Secondly-Without her consent. Thirdly-With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death, or of hurt. Fourthly-With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly-With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent by reason of unsoundness of mind of intoxication or the administration by him personally or thorough another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to what she gives consent. Sixthly-With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Sixthly-With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation-penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Exception-Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape." From the above section of IPC rape in the simplest form may be described as forcible sexual intercourse by a man with a woman which in other words would mean a man having committed sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent or against her will. From the evidence already discussed above, the fact that has emerged is that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent or against her will. Therefore, it is concluded that the accused had committed rape on the prosecutrix on 16/05/2014. As such, this Court has no choice but hold the accused guilty of having committed rape on the prosecutrix which is punishable under section 376(I) of IPC. 18. Now coming to the second charge, the prosecution case is that while committing the offence of rape on the prosecutrix the accused had also committed the offence of criminal intimidation. Therefore, he was charged under section 506 of IPC. The section read as follows:- "506. Punishment for criminal intimidation-Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." What is criminal intimidation is provided in section 503 of IPC and it reads as follows:- "503. Criminal intimidation-Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation-A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section." In the evidence given by the prosecutrix it was stated that while the accused was in the process of committing the crime of rape on the prosecutrix he slapped the prosecutrix and warned her of consequences if she did not cooperate and, even after the commission of the crime of rape was over he again warned the prosecutrix that if she reports regarding the matter to anybody, even the life of her two years old sister will be in trouble. From these evidences, it can be concluded that the accused had definitely issued threat and caused alarm to the prosecutrix. Therefore, the act of the accused has attracted the offence described under section 503 of IPC which is punishable under section 506 of the same penal code. As such, the accused is also held guilty of having committed the offence described in section 503 of IPC which is punishable under section 506 of the same penal code. 19. In view of the above findings and conclusions, needless to say but the judgment and order dated 16/10/2015 of the learned Sessions Judge, Kohima, Nagaland passed in G.R. No. 106/2014, Ref:- KMA (N) P.S. Case No. 32/2014, u/s 376/506/342/511 IPC is overruled and the accused is held guilty of the offence punishable under section 376(1) and section 506 of IPC. Send a copy of this order along with LCR to the learned Sessions Judge, Kohima, Nagaland. The learned Sessions Judge on receipt of the copy of this order and the case record shall fix a date for sentence hearing and proceed as per law. He shall do so within a reasonable period of time.