Ranjana Pandya, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 17.7.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 1194 of 2010 (State v. Islam) arising out of Crime No. 920 of 2009, under Sections 376 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Naubasta, District-Kanpur Nagar whereby the accused was found guilty under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. and was sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 3,000/- fine under Section 376 I.P.C. and 1 year rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- fine under Section 506 I.P.C. with default stipulation.

2. Filtering out unnecessary details the prosecution story as per the prosecution version is that Ramesh Kumar, son of the victim lodged a written report on 2.12.2009 stating that his mother is aged about of 65 years, who lives separately in her house and in the intervening night of 29/30.11.2009 she was sleeping in her room. The Tilak ceremony of Pintu was being performed near her house. At about 12:30 in the night, the accused Islam jumped the wall and entered the house of the victim. He pressed the neck of the victim and raped her. When the victim tried to raise alarm, she was threatened and her mouth was pressed and closed. After committing rape on the victim the accused fled away after threatening her. The victim told the occurrence to everybody. The accused could not be traced, hence report was lodged.

3. On the basis of this F.I.R., chick report was scribed by P.W. 6 Constable Ram Sewak, which was proved as Exhibit Ka-8.

4. Investigation was entrusted to S.I. Manoj Kumar Pant, P.W. 4. He copied the F.I.R. in the C.D., recorded the statement of the victim and other witnesses. He prepared the site plan, which was proved by this witness as Exhibit Ka-4. The investigation ended into a charge-sheet, which was proved as Exhibit Ka-5 by P.W. 4 S.I. Manoj Kumar Pant.

5. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Ruchi Jain, P.W. 3. As per the internal examination the hymen was old and torn, vagina was admitting two fingers with pain. There was laceration at 3 to 4 places around the vagina. Slides were prepared from the smear of the vagina and sent for Pathological examination. This witness proved the medical report as Exhibit Ka-2 and the supplementary report as Exhibit Ka-3.

6. P.W. 5 Dr. Harishankar Gupta prepared the medical report and found the following injuries on the person of the victim :-

(i) Multiple abrasion in an area of 6 cmx4cm on the right side of neck 1 cm below right angle of mandible.

(ii) Multiple abrasions in an area of 6cm x 3cm on left side of neck 1.5cm below left angle of mandible.

(iii) Abrasion 0.1cm x 0.2cm present of middle finger just below root of finger.

He proved the injury report as Exhibit Ka-6.

7. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. P.W. 1 is the victim. P.W. 2 is the informant Ramesh Kumar Prajapati, who proved the written report as Exhibit Ka-1. The evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 has been discussed by me above.

8. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the occurrence and stated that two days prior to the alleged occurrence, he had some dispute with Ramesh and Mania, sons of the victim, due to which they were inimical towards the accused. Hence, they lodged the F.I.R. The accused examined D.W. 1 Shyam Lal and D.W. 2 Majid in defence.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the lower court convicted the appellant as stated in para 1 of the judgement.

10. Feeling aggrieved, the accused-appellant has come in appeal.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court.

12. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R, which is fatal for the prosecution case. As per the chick report, Exhibit Ka-7, the occurrence took place in the intervening night of 29/30.11.2009 at 12:30 in the night. The report of the occurrence was lodged on 2.12.2009 at 1400 hrs. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence being 4 kms.

13. In Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 1993 Banney alias Laxmi Shanker v. State of U.P. the Honble Allahabad Court has laid down while dealing with the point of delay in lodging the F.I.R. as under :

In 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 410 Sri Narayan Shah v. State, Honble Apex Court held that mere delay in lodging the FIR is really of no consequence if the reason is explained. Learned AGA further argued that in such type of offences initially married lady husband generally remain reluctant to report the matter to the police to save shame and prestige of his family but when lady press him to lodge a report as her life prestige is also involved in the matter and she felt ashamed from the act of the accused as already she had uttered about the occurrence to the witnesses only then if report was lodged at the police station with some delay, it will not affect the merit of the case.

14. As far as delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, in the F.I.R. it has only been mentioned that the informant and others were tracing the accused, who could not be traced. In the case of sexual intercourse the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has to be examined in a different way. However, no straight jacket 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 factual situation, near relations of the prosecutrix may take time as to what course of action should be adopted. Thus, delay is bound to occur. 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 a case of this nature is a normal phenomenon. This is a peculiar case, in which the victim is an old lady aged about 60 to 65 years.

15. In a rape case the prosecutrix remains worried in traumatic state of mind. The family of the victim shows reluctance to go to the police station because of societys attitude towards such a woman. It casts doubts and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathies with her. The family remains concerned about its honour and reputation of the prosecutrix. Only after having a cool thought it is possible for the family to lodge a complaint in sexual offence as has been laid down in AIR 1995 SC 2472 [LQ/SC/1995/774] Karnel Sing v. State of M.P.

16. Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in a society, as it is an assault on body, mind and privacy of the victim. While a murderer destroys the physical frame of the victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female. Rape reduces a woman to an animal, as it shakes the very core of her life. By no means can a rape victim be called an accomplice. Rape leaves a permanent scar on the life of the victim, and therefore a rape victim is placed on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. Rape is a crime against the entire society and violates the human rights of the victim. Being the most hated crime, rape tantamounts to a serious blow to the supreme honour of a woman, and offends both, her esteem and dignity. It causes psychological and physical harm to the victim, leaving upon her indelible marks.

17. Referring to an earlier judgement in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekhraj and Another, 1999 Supp (4) SCR 286, the Honble Apex Court referring to the judgement of State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh and Others, (1996) 2 SCC 384 [LQ/SC/1996/111] has held :

"The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. 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 to act 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 part with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape.

Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another persons lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable.

A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practise incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discussed that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.

We are in respectful agreement with the above exposition of law. In the instant case our careful analysis of the statement of the prosecutrix has created an impression on our minds that she is a reliable and truthful witness. Her testimony suffers from no infirmity or blemish whatsoever. We have no hesitation in acting upon her testimony alone without looking for any `corroboration. However, in this case there is ample corroboration available on the record to lend further credence to the testimony of the prosecutrix."

18. P.W. 1, the victim narrating about the incident has stated that after the accused raped her, he fled away threatening the victim that, if she would narrate the incident to anybody, she would be killed. He jumped the wall and fled away. He also threatened to kill her. After the incident she sent information to her son Ramesh. For a couple of days Islam was being traced, but he could not be traced. Then her son took her to the police station.

19. I am aware that rape on an aged lady in her 50s to 60s is an equally shameful act and even an aged lady would be looked upon by shame by the illiterate villagers. In this particular case, the accused is practically half of the age of the victim. I would not have any hesitance to say that practically the accused is of the age of the son of the victim. They may not be mother and son, but their respective ages are such that could be that of a mother and son. Such instances shake the conscious of the court. No doubt, courts cannot be swayed away by sentiments. The courts should at the same time, bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon. But in this case too, a very careful scrutiny of sole testimony of the prosecutrix would be needed.

20. The victim has admitted that she lives separately from her children since last 10 years and she lives alone in the house. Further, she has stated that after the occurrence, her daughters came, who informed their brothers about the incident. Her daughters took her when she informed her sons about the occurrence. She had gone early morning to inform her sons. The informant P.W. 2 is Ramesh, son of the victim who has stated that the victim lives alone in the house. After one and half hour of the incident, his mother narrated the incident to him in the night, but he did not go to the police station. The accused had also threatened to kill the victim. Somehow his mother came to his house and narrated the whole incident. Islam was being traced, but could not be traced. After that, report was lodged.

21. This is a case in which a very aged lady is raped, besides the victim, even her daughters and sons would have though many times before proceeding to lodge a report. Hence, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been satisfactorily explained.

22. As far as occurrence is concerned, a submission has been made on behalf of the accused, that the accused is inimical to the family of the victim, hence on the instigation on her son, the victim has falsely implicated the accused.

23. The victim P.W. 1, has stated that about 8 to 10 days prior to the incident someone had administered alcohol to her son Mania, due to which he started abusing his nephews. There was no dispute between Rafique and Mania. This aspect of the matter was also put to P.W. 2, but there is nothing in his statement, which could corroborate the defence version. However, S.I. Manoj Kumar Pant, was also confronted with this aspect of the matter in which he has stated that one day prior to the incident dispute took place between the victim, accused and sons of the victim. Both the parties were detained. But he denied and said that no assault took place between both the parties. If, there was any dispute between the accused, victim and sons of the victim, it would not be a ground to lodge a false case against the victim keeping at stake her reputation and her family reputation. In this regard the evidence of the defence witnesses commands the same respect as the prosecution witness D.W. 1 has stated that he had heard that Mania had altercation with Islam, who is married and having three children. This witness had not witnessed the occurrence and his evidence is hearsay, which cannot be relied upon under any provision of law.

24. As far as evidence of D.W. 2 Majid is concerned, he has stated that altercations took place between the brother of the informant Mania and Islam, and police came and apprehended both and both were challenged under 151 Cr.P.C., hence a false F.I.R. was lodged against Islam. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he is friendly with Islam. Even, if it is presumed that some altercation took place between the son of the victim namely Mania and the accused, this would not be a ground for an aged lady about 55 to 65 years to implicate the accused falsely, especially, in a rape case if, at all there was any enmity between Mania and Islam. But, however, I do not think that this small dispute between the Mania and Islam-accused could result in lodging of this false F.I.R. of rape against the Islam. Hence, the arguments that the accused had been implicated due to enmity has no legs to stand and it does not strike the conscious of the court.

25. As far as occurrence is concerned, it is trite law that if the evidence of the prosecutrix is trustworthy and probable, the court does not seek for any corroboration. The evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, if it is probable and logical.

26. Generally, in cases of rape, the court does not ponder to find corroboration if the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is no a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge. However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend assurance to her testimony as has been held in Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2006 SC 508 [LQ/SC/2005/1213] .

27. In the present case, the victim of rape stated on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, which was done without her consent. There are no discrepancies in her statement and her statement is probable and reliable. She stated that she offered resistance to the best of her ability, but she succumbed to the force employed by the accused. She has narrated that how she was caught by the accused, when she was sleeping in the courtyard.

28. No doubt the evidence of the prosecutrix needs to be analysed and examined carefully, and if, the testimony of the prosecutrix is found reliable by itself it may be sufficient to convict the culprit and no corroboration of evidence of the applicant is necessary. In case of forcible intercourse, the victim must have made some strong resistance and in the process, some injuries would have been found on the body of the victim indicative of such use of any force. Although injuries on the body is not always a must or sine-qua non to prove a charge of rape.

29. No doubt in matters of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix must be given consideration but, at the same time it is the burden of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

30. The testimony of the sole witness being the prosecutrix could not be discarded, if it is unimpeachable and beyond reproach. The Honble Apex Court in State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Gian Chand, AIR 2001 SC 2075 [LQ/SC/2001/1181] decided on 1 May, 2001 has held that :

It is now well settled that conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances such as the report of chemical examination etc. if the same is found be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.

31. Coming to the statement of the victim, she has stated that the accused raped her in her courtyard. This is supported by the site plan Exhibit Ka-4. The victim has further stated that the accused jumped the wall and entered in her house. He pressed her neck due to which she sustained injuries on her neck. The accused had also twisted her hand, due to which she had sustained injuries. She had shown her injuries to the Doctor. She had further sustained injuries on her cheek, due to which she could not eat anything for 15 days and for many days she could not walk properly. She had handed over her Peticoat to the I.O. The I.O. has stated that he did not take the Peticoat of the victim in custody or in his possession. But he has admitted that the victim had told about her injuries and admittedly, there was no source of light at the place of the incident.

32. As far as light is concerned, this witness had to undergo a very fishing cross-examination, in which she has stated that although, there was no light, but she was able to see and recognise the accused, since he was previously known to her. My attention has been drawn to a few minor inconsistencies in the statement of the victim, in which she has stated that the accused remained in her house for one hour and left her house at 12/12:30 in the night. But we cannot loose sight of the fact that the occurrence is to have taken place during the intervening night of 29/30.11.2009, whereas the statement of this witness was recorded on 22.3.2011 and 28.2.2011, about one year and three months after the occurrence.

33. The victim is an old lady and the variations pointed out above, are minor variations, which neither strike at the root of the case nor are fatal for the prosecution. But in fact minor inconsistencies are bound to occur in the statement of natural and truthful witnesses.

34. The victim sustained multiple abrasions on both sides of the neck, one abrasion below the right root of finger and she complained of pain on the right shoulder. The aforesaid injuries are indicative of struggle and force used by the accused on this lady. Even the injuries noted by the lady Doctor are suggestive and indicative that the victim was forcibly and sexually assaulted by the accused. Inasmuch as the vagina was admitting two fingers with pain. Dry anal fibnosis was seen at orifice. Para urethral lacerations 3-4 in number were present all around the vagina. Besides, it further found support from Exhibit Ka-3, which is the pathological report, which revealed occasional and dead and dried sperms in the supplementary report. Dr. Harishankar Gupta, P.W. 5 proved the injuries on the external part of the body of the victim, whereas Dr. Ruchi Jain, who internally examined the victim has specifically stated that when she internally examined the victim, she saw injuries on her hand and neck, for which she was referred. She has further stated that dried and dead sperms can be found within 72 hrs of intercourse and, if the sperms are beyond the period of 72 hrs, then they may be found or they may not be found. Thus, the medical evidence also fully corroborates the oral evidence adduced by the victim. Thus, the evidence of the victim is natural, inspires confidence and make its acceptable.

35. In the traditional non-permissible bonds of society of India, no girl or woman of self respect and dignity would depose falsely implicating somebody of ravishing her, but also would invite the wrath of being ostracised and outcast from the society, she belongs to and also from her family circle.

36. Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, I find that the prosecution has fully proved the charges framed against the accused and conviction of the accused is based on sufficient evidence on record. The sentence imposed on the accused-appellant is just and proper. The judgement of the trial court is based on evidence, which needs no interference. The appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

37. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

38. The judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.7.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 1194 of 2010 (State v. Islam) arising out Crime No. 920 of 2009, under Sections 376 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Naubasta, District-Kanpur Nagar is confirmed.

39. The accused is in jail, he shall serve out the remaining sentence.

40. Let certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court for compliance.

Appeal dismissed.