Pranav B Prem

In a significant judgment, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a man accused of raping a 35-year-old woman, emphasizing that a victim of such a heinous crime would naturally be in shock and unable to travel alone at night to lodge a First Information Report (FIR). The bench, led by Justice Govind A. Sanap, rejected the convict’s argument regarding the delay in filing the FIR, citing the victim’s mental and physical state following the traumatic event.

Case Background

The incident occurred on March 25, 2017, at around 7:30 PM in a village in Amravati district, where the victim lived alone. The appellant, a laborer known to the victim, entered her house, physically assaulted her, and raped her. Following the incident, the victim managed to contact a friend, Pundlik Bansod, for help. Despite the appellant fleeing after being confronted by Bansod, the victim could not immediately approach the police station, located approximately 15 kilometers away. The next morning, accompanied by Bansod, she filed a report at 6:00 AM at the Shirkhed Police Station.

Observations by the Court

Justice Sanap highlighted the challenges faced by rape survivors, especially in rural settings. The court observed: “The victim was helpless. One can visualize the pain, agony, and trauma suffered by her after this incident. She must have suffered a shock of her life on account of such an outrageous act committed by the appellant. In such a state of mind, a woman is not expected to travel alone in the night to the police station, which is 15 kilometers away from her residence, for lodging the report.”

The court added that the timing of the FIR—filed the following morning—aligned with the victim’s conduct, considering her need for support and the distance to the police station. "It has come on record that, on the next day in the morning, the prosecutrix did not go to the police station alone. This fact would show that the prosecutrix needed the support of someone in this crisis situation. In view of this, the delay per se would not go against the case of prosecution," the judge held.

Key Points Addressed by the Court

1. Delay in Filing the FIR: The court firmly stated that a delay in reporting a rape cannot automatically discredit the victim’s testimony. It emphasized that the victim’s trauma, societal factors, and lack of immediate support must be considered.

2. Victim’s Testimony: Justice Sanap noted that the victim’s testimony was consistent, credible, and corroborated by her friend, Bansod, who witnessed the appellant lying on her person. The court held that the absence of physical injuries or immediate medical evidence did not diminish the reliability of her account.

3. Role of the Witness: Bansod’s evidence was deemed trustworthy as he had no prior enmity with the accused and no reason to fabricate his statements.

4. Rural Context and Social Stigma: Acknowledging the inherent societal challenges and stigma associated with reporting rape, the court reiterated that a “self-respecting woman” would not falsely accuse someone of such a humiliating act. "It is to be noted that, in case of rape, no self-respecting women would come forward in the Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. The inherent bashfulness of females and tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are the factors, which the Court cannot overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital. Unless and until it is shown that there are compelling reasons, which necessitate corroboration of testimony, the testimony of the victim can be relied upon to base the conviction," the judge observed.

Court’s Conclusion

The court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. The appellant was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(1) (rape) and one year under Section 452 (house trespass) of the Indian Penal Code.

Cause Title: Balya @ Rahul Sahebrao Lokhande vs State of Maharashtra

Case No: Criminal Appeal 886 of 2022

Date: December-20-2024

Bench: Justice Govind A. Sanap

[Read/Download order]