A.K. Saxena, J.
The main contention of the learned Counsel of the Appellant is that as per prosecution story, the incident had taken place at 11.00 A.M., whereas P.W. 10 Dr. (Smt.) Shanti Chahal examined the prosecutrix at 9.25 P.M. and she admitted that the blood was oozing out from the abrasion caused on the nose of the prosecutrix and this injury might have been caused within three hours. This admission of the doctor is sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story. He also relied on the cases of
P.W.2 prosecutrix has stated that at about 11.00 A.M. she was sitting in the house, the Appellant Chunkayee entered into the house with iron chain and asked to maintain physical relations with him. When she refused, he caused injuries by the means of iron chain and thereafter, he ravished her. It is apparent from her cross-examination that at the time of incident, nobody was present inside or near the house of prosecutrix though, there is a house of Mohan Singh near the house of prosecutrix, which is apparent from the map Ex.P./6. In these circumstances, if the prosecutrix raised the alarm, it must have gone in vain. In these circumstances, if nobody could reached at the house of prosecutrix,it does not mean that the bare statement of prosecutrix should be disbelieved.
It is very much clear from the statement of P.W. 2 prosecutrix that before maintaining physical relations with her, the Appellant Chunkayee Singh caused injuries to her by the means of iron chain and the fact of injuries finds support from the statement of P.W. 10 Dr. (Smt.) Shanti Chahal and her report Ex.P./5-A. Though, blouse or broken bangles were not seized by the investigating Officer, but the slackness on the part of Investigating Officer is not sufficient to disbelieve the statement of prosecutrix. The omissions came in the statement of prosecutrix are not very material. In these circumstances, the bare statement of P.W.2 prosecutrix is believable.
The statement of prosecutrix is well supported by indirect evidence of the witnesses and the FIR which was lodged without any undue delay. There is nothing in the cross examination of P.W.2 prosecutrix to disbleive her bare statement also. Her statement is trustworthy and inspire confidence. The prosecution proved the charge u/s 376(1) of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant Chunkayee Singh that on 5.8.2002 at about 11.00 A.M, he committed rape on the prosecutrix in her house. Considering the statement of prosecutrix, the question of her consent does not arise. The trial Court has rightly held that the statement of prosecutrix is believable and the prosecution proved this charge beyond reasonable doubt.
On the point of sentence, the learned Counsel for the Appellant also argued that the Appellant has no criminal record against him. He is not previously convicted person. At the time of incident, he was aged about 35 years. The prosecutrix was also aged about 35 years at the time of incident and it is not a case where the rape was committed with a girl less than 18 years of age. The Appellant is in jail since 16.07.2003 and he has already undergone jail sentence of about four years. Considering these facts, the jail sentence may be reduced.
