STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusPREM SINGH

                      [2008) 15 S.C.R. 1058


A               STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                                                      +
                                v.
                          PREM SINGH
                (Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2002}

                      NOVEMBER 11, 2008
B
       [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                      SHARMA, JJ.]
                                                                     -'-~

                                                         '
       Penal Code, 1860: ss'.376, 354 and 506 - Conviction
c under, by trial Court- High Court ordered acquittal on ground                    ...
  of inordinate. delay in lodging FIR - Challenged - Held:                         t-
                                                                                       ).
  Delay in cases of sexual assault not fatal to prosecution
                                                                                   r
  case, since several factors weigh in the mind of prosecutrix
  and her family members before coming to police station to                        I
                                                                                   I
D lodge a complaint - On facts, prosecution established             ,_.i
  commission of offence under ss.354 and 506 - Acquittal for
  these offences not correct - Case of rape not established,
  hence, order of acquittal under S;376 is correct - Crime
  against women.
E
      Prosecution case was that respondent-accused
  sexually ravished PW-1 and outraged the modesty of not
  only PW-1 but of several other girl students of the school
  where he was teacher. Respondent was also charged for
                                                                  ..,.....
  commission of offences relating to threatening the
F prosecutrix with dire consequences in case she                               .._
                                                                               I
                                                                               ,.
  disclosed the incident to any one. The trial Court
  convicted the respondent under ss.376, 354 and 506 IPC. .

      On appeal, High Court held that there was inordinate
G delay in lodging FIR and directed acquittal. Hence the
  present appeal.                                                            ,..
                                                                  ,.>..
       Partly allowing the appeal, the Court


H                              1058
   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. PREM SINGH                 1059


    HELD: The delay in case of sexual assault, cannot              A
be equated with the case involving other offences. There
are several factors which weigh in the mind of the
prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the
police station to lod'1e a complaint. In a tradition bound
society prevalent in India, more particularly, rural areas,        B
it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution
case merely on the ground that there is some delay in
lodging the FIR. The High Court has lost sight of this vital
distinction. Additionally, the prosecution clearly
established commission of offence punishable under                 c
ss.354 and 506 IPC. So far as the offence punishable
under s.376 IPC is concerned, the basic ingredients are
set out in s.375 IPC. On a reading of the evidence of the
prosecutrix, a case of rape has not been established.
[Para 6] [1061-A-B]
                                                                   D
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 44 of 2002.

    From the final Judgment and Order dated 10.5.2001 of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Crl. Appeal No.        E
318 of 1998.

     Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant.

     Ravi Bakshi and Yash Pal Dhingra for the Respondent.
                                                                   F
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant- State and learned counsel for the respondent
(hereinafter referred as to as the 'accused').
                                                                   G
     2. On the allegation that the respondent had sexually
ravished PW- 1 and had outraged the modesty of not only P
W- 1, but of several other girl students of the school where the
respondent was a teacher, law was set in motion. The
respondent was .further charged for commission of offences         H
      1060     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2008] 15 S.C.R.


A relating to threatening the prosecutrix with dire consequences
       in case she disclosed the incident to somebody else.· The
       accused faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 37
       6 , 35 4 and 50 6 of the Indian Pen al Code, 18 6 0 (in ·short
     . 'the.I PC') .
.B
     ·. 3. The learned· Addi. Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal
  Pradesh found the accused guilty of all the offences, sentenced
  him to undergo rigorous imprison ment for ten years', six
  months' and six months' respectively; In appeal, the High Court
C set ~side the.judgment of conviction and sentence and directed
  acquittal of the .respondent.

       4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
  appellant-State subrnitted that the reasons indicated by the
  High Court are indefensible. The High Court has treated delay
D in lodging the FIR in a case involving rape, to be similar to that
  involving other offences. Additionally, it was submitted that the
  evidence of PW- 1, the prosecutrix has been lightly brushed           .   I


  aside. -                                ··          ··        .

E        5. In response, learned'counsel for the respondent-
    accused submitted that not only there was inordinate delay in
  . lodging the FIR, but also, the fact that the prosecutrix claimed
   to have told her mother and a teacher about the alleged ·
   incident at_the first instance and, thereafter, there was total
   silence of nearly two years, casts ·doubt on the authenticity of .
F the prosecution version. In any event, it is submitted, that the
   offence punishable under Section ~ ·-; 6 I PC is· not m·ade out.

       6. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR question is
  concerned, the delay in a case of sexual assault; cannot be
G eq.uated with the case involving other·offences. There are
  several factors which weigh in the mind ofttie prosecutrix and
  her family members before coming to the police station to lodge
  a complaint. ln..a tradition bound society prevalent in India: more
  particularly, rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out .
H the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some
   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. PREM SINGH                    1061
             [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

delay in lodging the Fl R.. In that score, learned counsel for the    A
appellant is right that the High Court has lost sight of this vital
distinction. Additionally, we find that the prosecution has clearly
established commission of offence punishable under Sections
35 4 and 5 0 6 I PC. So far as the offence punishable under
Section 3 7 6 I PC is concerned, the basic ingredients are set        B
out in Section 37 5 I PC. On a reading of the evidence of the
prosecutrix, we find that a case of rape has not been
established so far as the respondent is concerned.

     7. That being the position, we allow the appeal of the State C
to the extent that the respondent is convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 3 5 4 and 5 0 6 I PC. The sentences
are two years' and six months' rigorous imprison ment
respectively. It is stated that the appellant has. suffered more
than that period of custody. If that being so, he need not · '
surrender to custody,. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid . D
extent.

D.G.                                      Appeal partly allowed.