Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Parkash Chand, was convicted by the trial court under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for committing rape on the prosecutrix (PW2) in December 1999 and for criminal intimidation. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh affirmed the conviction. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The prosecution case was that on 5.12.1999, the appellant dragged the prosecutrix to a lonely place, showed her a knife, and raped her. He threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident. The prosecutrix, an orphan brought up by her uncle and aunt, did not report the incident immediately due to fear and shame. She later became pregnant and disclosed the incident to her aunt. A panchayat (baradari) was called, and the appellant initially agreed to keep her as his wife but later turned her out. On 17.7.2000, she met PW1 at Chamba and lodged the FIR. The appellant argued that the FIR was lodged after a delay of 7 months, relying on Vijayan v. State of Kerala, where a similar delay led to acquittal. The State contended that the delay was satisfactorily explained and that the prosecutrix's testimony was credible, supported by extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant to PW4 and PW5. The Supreme Court examined the impact of delay, noting that delay per se is not a mitigating circumstance; it only puts the court on guard to examine the explanation. The Court distinguished Vijayan, observing that in that case the prosecutrix had not disclosed the incident to anyone for 7 months, whereas in the present case, the prosecutrix had disclosed the incident to her aunt and a panchayat was convened. The Court found the prosecutrix's testimony to be trustworthy and corroborated by the extra-judicial confessions. The Court held that the delay was satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix's fear, shame, and the appellant's promise to marry her. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Delay in FIR - Delay of 7 months in lodging FIR in rape case is not fatal if satisfactorily explained - Court held that the prosecutrix's explanation of fear, shame, and the accused's promise to marry her was satisfactory, and the delay did not render the prosecution case brittle (Paras 5-8). B) Criminal Law - Rape - Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix - Conviction can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix if it is credible and inspires confidence - Court found the testimony of PW2 to be trustworthy and corroborated by extra-judicial confession and other evidence (Paras 8-10). C) Criminal Law - Extra-judicial Confession - Extra-judicial confession made by accused to PW4 and PW5, admitting guilt and seeking compromise, is admissible and corroborates the prosecution case (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Sections 376 and 506 IPC can be sustained despite a delay of 7 months in lodging the FIR and whether the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Sections 376 and 506 IPC upheld.
Law Points
- Delay in lodging FIR in rape cases is not fatal if satisfactorily explained
- Sole testimony of prosecutrix can be basis for conviction if credible
- Extra-judicial confession can corroborate prosecution case
