JUDGMENT : RATNAKER BHENGRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. Instant application has been preferred on behalf of petitioner seeking special leave to appeal from the judgment of an acquittal of opposite party No. 2 vide judgment dated 28.08.2017 arising out of Complaint Case No. 3028/2014 in S.T. No. 63/2017 by the learned Judicial Commissioner XVII-cum-FTC (CAW), Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, opposite party No. 2 has been acquitted by the learned Court below for the charged offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant before the learned SDJM, Ranchi on 03.11.2014 in short is that the accused George Tarun Hans met her via Facebook in September 2011. Thereafter they started chatting with each other through mobile and on 22.10.2011 the complainant and the accused met with each other like friends. Thereafter, they met several times at different places. The complainant further stated that she joined St. Francis School, Banhora as a teacher on 14.08.2013 and she was residing at her relative house and due to pressure of the accused she shifted at rented house of Albart Tigga situated at Harmu Basti, PS Argora, District-Ranchi on 26.08.2013 and on that day, she was raped forcibly by the accused. The accused also took her nude photographs and on the protest of complainant for the same, the accused threatened that if she lodged FIR or complained then he will upload the said photographs on internet and on 27.08.2013, the accused also raped her several times against her will. 4. The case arises out of a complaint case instituted by the complainant on 03.11.2014 and numbered as Complaint Case No. 3028/2014. Learned SDJM, Ranchi took cognizance of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and committed the case to the Court of sessions for trial. Charge was framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-opposite party No. 2, to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried. Trial was held, at the conclusion of which, the accused was acquitted. Hence, this application for leave to appeal by the complainant. 5. The prosecution has examined only two witnesses including the complainant/victim herself as PW-1 and Francis Horo as PW-2. 6. PW-1 deposed she had lodged a case against George Tarun Hans. Trial was held, at the conclusion of which, the accused was acquitted. Hence, this application for leave to appeal by the complainant. 5. The prosecution has examined only two witnesses including the complainant/victim herself as PW-1 and Francis Horo as PW-2. 6. PW-1 deposed she had lodged a case against George Tarun Hans. She further deposed that she came in contact with the accused through Facebook. She met him for the first time on 22.10.2011 at Bhatinda, Punjab and after that they did chatting on Facebook. She further deposed that on 14.8.2013, she joined as teacher in St. Francis School in Ranchi and she was living with her family at Dhela Toli. In between the accused George Tarun Hans gave her temptation and brought her to Harmu Basti on 26.8.2013 at about 7.00-8.00 p.m. and after keeping all the things George Tarun Hans told her close your eyes, there is a surprise for you and as such she closed her eyes. Then the accused tied up her hands and inserted cloth in her mouth and disrobed her and raped her. He also took her nude photographs on mobile. She further stated that she could not raise alarm, only she wept. She further deposed that after making video, the accused told her not to disclose the occurrence to anyone, even do not go to police and if she does then her nude video will be uploaded on internet and she will be insulted and her teaching service will be ruined and she will have no other option except to die. She further alleged that again on 27.8.2013 at about 7.00-8.00 hours the accused committed rape upon her for second time by giving her threats. On 28.8.2013 the accused came in drunken condition at 7.00-8.00 hours and committed rape upon her third time by giving her threats. She further deposed that on 16.9.2013 the accused George Tarun Hans tried to disrobe her then she started weeping and crying. Then he started beating her by fist and said that if you make excuse then he will upload her nude video on Internet as such she will be defamed and he committed rape upon hex fourth time. She further deposed that on 16.9.2013 the accused George Tarun Hans tried to disrobe her then she started weeping and crying. Then he started beating her by fist and said that if you make excuse then he will upload her nude video on Internet as such she will be defamed and he committed rape upon hex fourth time. She further deposed that after thinking and fearing on 22.9.2013 at about 10.30 hours she went to the house of the accused George Tarun Hans and met with the parents of the accused George Tarun Hans and narrated the whole incident to them. Then his parents also started saying in favour of their son and said that whatever their son will say that she will have to listen and do. She further deposed that the parents of the accused said to her that they will tell their son to delete her nude video and her marriage will be solemnized with their son and she should not go to Police and not inform anyone because there will be insult from this. She further deposed that on 3.10.2013 at about 5.00 p.m. again George Tarun Hans came to her house and threatened her and demanded 5 lacs for deleting the video. She further deposed that she told him that she could not give this much money as she has no money at this time, then he said how much can you give at this time. She was silent and weeping and he was giving her threats and said she would have to give rupees three lacs and she prayed for one week time for this. She further deposed that she took rupees fifty thousand from her mother and rupees one lakh from "Bade Papa" Juel Toppo and from her elder brother another rupees fifty thousand and she had rupees fifty thousand and thus in total she gave rupees two lakhs fifty thousand to the accused George Tarun Hans on 6.10.2013 at about 6.00 p.m. at her house and told him that she does not have rupees three lacs and she has only rupees two lacs fifty thousand. Then he snatched her golden chain and mobile and said that after selling these articles he will delete her video. Then he snatched her golden chain and mobile and said that after selling these articles he will delete her video. She further deposed that on 18.10.2013 in between at 7.00-8.00 p.m. after threatening her on pretext of video he disrobed her and committed rape upon her for fifth time. She further deposed that she was weeping and afraid and as such she did not tell this to anyone. She deposed that she has not done her medical test through any Doctor. She further deposed that on 19.10.2013 ill the morning at about 7.00 a.m. George Tarun Hans came to her house and by threatening her, forced her to sit on his motorcycle and he was taking her to Francis School, Banhora and on the way he suddenly braked the motorcycle and she fell down in a ditch and sustained injury on her head. The nearby people assembled there and George Tarun Hans being fearful brought her to Deo Kamal Hospital and showing himself as her husband, he admitted her there. She was unconscious on reaching there and was in very critical condition. She further deposed that George Tarun Hans and his family members did not come to see her in the hospital. She further deposed that her treatment was done at Deo Kamal Hospital, RIMS, Sewa Sadan and different places and she was cured in 11-12 months. After getting well on 20.10.2014, she went to the house of George Tarun Hans at about 8.30 a.m. along with her elder brother Francis Horo and Nitesh Mukesh and met with his parents. She further deposed that George Tarun Hans caught her hand and his parents had slapped her and said that you are still alive, if you come again then you will not be alive and they also abused her badly. Her brother saved her from them and brought her home and on the same day, she went to Argora PS and informed about the occurrence and the Police assured that "Ho Jayega" but she did not get justice. Thereafter she contacted an advocate and narrated about the occurrence and then he got typed her statements and she put her signature over it and her Advocate also signed over it which she identified and the same is marked as Exhibit-1. Thereafter she contacted an advocate and narrated about the occurrence and then he got typed her statements and she put her signature over it and her Advocate also signed over it which she identified and the same is marked as Exhibit-1. In her cross-examination, she stated that in the rented house where she resided many renters were also living but she did not identify anyone from them. 7. PW-2, Francis Horo, deposed that the occurrence is of 2012, at that time, his cousin (chacheri sister) was going to school and Tarun was going to drop her at school and at the same time, a major accident took place and after that Tarun brought her to hospital and the complainant was injured and for many days her treatment was going on. He further deposed that the expense of her treatment was not given by George Tarun. He said that he does not identify George Tarun. This witness turned hostile. In his cross-examination, he stated that the complainant was having friendship with George Tarun and she wanted to marry with him. Arguments of the counsel for the petitioner: 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued primarily basing himself on the evidence of PW-1, who is also said to be the alleged victim and informant. He has submitted that the informant has substantially corroborated her complaint in her evidence and even gave further details as to the various dates she was assaulted on. He has submitted that rape is a crime that is on assault on the very being and dignity of the female sex, and in this case, she was not only assaulted on one occasion but on five different dates as pointed out in her evidence. The respondent was able to get away with his crime for a long time only because he had photographed the victim in the nude and threatened her. Under such threat of disclosure he continued to victimize her over a long period and committed rape on five different occasions. She kept quiet on the matter because of such threats of disclosure and also threats to her body and life even otherwise. 9. Moreover, on 19.10.2003 that is after the sexual assaults were made she met with an accident and was hospitalized for 11-12 months and therefore her complaint against opposite party No. 2 was further delayed. 10. She kept quiet on the matter because of such threats of disclosure and also threats to her body and life even otherwise. 9. Moreover, on 19.10.2003 that is after the sexual assaults were made she met with an accident and was hospitalized for 11-12 months and therefore her complaint against opposite party No. 2 was further delayed. 10. Petitioner's counsel has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and Others, (1996) 2 SCC 384 , which is quoted as under: "...........The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable....." 11. Counsel argues that if an Indian woman alleges rape, it should be accepted as such because why will she put her own reputation, dignity and name at stake. Hence, based on the testimony of the prosecutrix itself, the petitioner's application for leave to appeal should be allowed. Arguments of the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State: 12. Learned A.P.P. has argued that State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and Others (supra) is only of assistance if the testimony of the so-called victim is reliable and dependable. He argued that this was not the case in the current case. Arguments of the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State: 12. Learned A.P.P. has argued that State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and Others (supra) is only of assistance if the testimony of the so-called victim is reliable and dependable. He argued that this was not the case in the current case. First and foremost, the genesis of the offence and the dates of the offence is of months ago or more than a year. The first instance of rape allegedly took place on 26.08.2013 and she filed complaint on 03.11.2014. In her complaint, which is admittedly drafted with assistance of an advocate, she alleged rape on two occasions but in her deposition she cites three more instance, the last one being on 18.10.2013. She has no medical report from any doctor to prove that rape had taken place and all this while she has not complained to the Police or anyone till 18.10.2013 or soon thereafter. 13. Learned A.P.P. also argues that even before the alleged instances of rape began, she had just begun a friendship with him on Facebook on September 2011, later met on 22.10.2011 and when she joined St. Francis School, Banhora, Ranchi, she continued to be friends with him and then subsequently the alleged rape took place. A.P.P. argued that this is a case of intimacy, arising out of relationship. 14. Learned A.P.P. also argued that for deleting the nude video, it is alleged that opposite party No. 2 had demanded rupees five lacs. The prosecutrix has further asserted that she procured Rs. 50,000/- from her mother, Rs. 1,00,000/- from her uncle, Rs. 50,000/- from her elder brother and adding Rs. 50,000/- which she had, then gave a total of Rs. 2,50,000/- for deleting the videos. However, she has no evidence of such payment. Moreover, her mother and uncle have not even come forward as witnesses, while her brother, who is a cousin in his brief evidence, makes no reference to this Rs. 2,50,000/-. So for the reasons of long intimacy, delay, lack of corroboration and inconsistencies the leave to appeal should not be allowed. FINDINGS: 15. Having heard both counsels, gone through the records and evidences, the following are observed: (i) Petitioner has argued that there is some history behind the case, even prior to the rape or rapes. The petitioner is matured woman, she is not a minor. FINDINGS: 15. Having heard both counsels, gone through the records and evidences, the following are observed: (i) Petitioner has argued that there is some history behind the case, even prior to the rape or rapes. The petitioner is matured woman, she is not a minor. In fact, she is a teacher in a school. She had met opposite party No. 2 initially via Facebook, then physically met and a friendship developed between them. The informant or victim has alleged the first instance of rape to have taken place on 26.08.2013 and then allegedly opposite party No. 2 took photographs of the petitioner in the nude and threatened to make it public, if she reports or complains about the matter. She does not report the matter in the first instance, it may be understandable, but opposite party No. 2 allegedly again raped her over a period four more times. Still she does not report the matter to anybody or the Police. Her allegations are now somewhat stretched. (ii) She then alleges that to delete the photograph or video, opposite party No. 2 demands rupees five lacs. She takes money from her mother, uncle and cousin brother of reasonably substantial amounts to help her make payment to opposite party No. 2. She pays an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. If her mother, uncle and elder brother were willing to advance her Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- then it would indicate that the family of the petitioner was involved in the matter, particularly, to save the reputation of the petitioner. By giving her money for making payment to opposite party No. 2, now they even had a monetary stake in the matter. Disturbingly, the mother and uncle have not appeared as prosecution witnesses to give evidence against the opposite party No. 2. A mother would even otherwise take her stand as a witness. But, shockingly, this has not been so. Her cousin or the elder brother, in his evidence, on the other hand, does not refer to the rapes at all but only to her accident and concludes that the petitioner wanted to marry opposite party No. 2. However, this seems to be a case of a relationship gone sour. This is a case, which is not altogether unfamiliar these days. However, this seems to be a case of a relationship gone sour. This is a case, which is not altogether unfamiliar these days. Young people, individuals meeting, encountering each other over Facebook, a virtual world, in which, much remains concealed and what is revealed is often a case of putting the best foot forward. They then physically meet, develop a relationship and then the series of rapes is alleged of on five times. The lodging of the complaint is much delayed and raises many doubts. (iii) Finally, she also deposed that she had an accident and was hospitalized or treated over a long period. There is, however, no documentary evidence, regarding such treatment, or even the main details of the accident. 16. Thus having gone through the records of the case, the evidences and arguments of both counsels, it is seen that there was a subsisting relationship between the parties over a period during which time she had sex with the appellant on at least five occasions. Even if she later on alleges rape, the delay in formally raising it creates much doubt. Even her own mother, uncle and the cousin brother, who give her considerable sums to bail her out from the alleged blackmail by the appellant over nude photographs of the complainant which he had taken, have not come forward as witness and this cousin brother in his evidence does not even mention rape. We do not find any good grounds made by the petitioner for grant of special leave to appeal against a very well reasoned judgment of acquittal of the opposite party No. 2 George Tarun Hans from the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, dated 28.08.2017 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 3028/2014 in S.T. No. 63/2017) passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner XVII-cum-FTC (CAW). Ranchi. 17. Accordingly, the application, preferred by the petitioner seeking special leave to appeal, from the judgment of acquittal is dismissed. I agree – Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Application dismissed.