Village Settlement Efforts Can Justify Delay In Rape FIR; Jharkhand High Court Upholds Conviction
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jharkhand Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Rai dismissed the accused-appellant’s appeal, declined to interfere with his conviction for rape carrying seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, and directed him to surrender before the court concerned. The dispute stemmed from the prosecutrix’s allegation that, while she was attending a Shivratri fair near a temple where her father ran a sweet shop, she stepped away briefly and was allegedly caught, dragged to a nearby spot, threatened, and sexually assaulted at night. On the issue of a short delay in reporting, the Court noted that in village settings families may first attempt an amicable settlement through local elders, and that the FIR may follow when such efforts do not succeed.
The appeal challenged the judgment and order of sentence dated 20.11.2003 passed by the 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka, convicting the appellant Rabindra Prasad @ Rabindra Prasad Bhagat for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
The prosecution case proceeded on the victim’s statement recorded at Masalia Police Station on 14.03.2002 at 13:15 hrs, stating that she was 14 years old and a student of Class VIII. She alleged that on 12.03.2002 at about 8:30 p.m., while at a Shivratri mela near Shiv Mandir where her father ran a sweet shop, she went to relieve herself and was allegedly caught, gagged, dragged to barren land near a mango tree, threatened, and raped. She stated she returned home weeping and narrated the incident to her mother and aunt. She also referred to an earlier incident near a “Darbari Mela,” later clarified in evidence.
The FIR was lodged on 14.03.2002 after village meetings held on 13.03.2002 and 14.03.2002. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and proved documentary exhibits including the victim’s statement, formal FIR, panchayat paper, age certificate, and a medical report. The defence denied the allegations and relied on documents marked Ext. A to G to suggest enmity and challenge prosecution credibility.
The Court recorded that the victim’s identity was protected: “The name of the victim, her parents, and her relatives is deliberately not being disclosed to protect the identity of the victim.” It noted the rival submissions—delay in FIR, alleged non-seizure of clothes, age dispute, and alleged enmity—against the State’s stand that the victim’s testimony was sufficient if it inspired confidence.
On evidence, the Court stated: “P.W. – 3 is the victim and has stated that the incident occurred on 12.03.2002 at about 08:30 P.M.” It recorded her version that she was taken to “barren land near a mango tree” and “rape was committed on her.” The Court further recorded that the victim returned home and narrated the incident to her mother and aunt, and that meetings were convened on “13.03.2002 and 14.03.2002” before going to the police station.
On corroboration through immediate narration, the Court observed: “It is required to be noted that the victim, who narrated the incident immediate after its occurrence to her mother (P.W.-2) and her aunt (P.W.-5) in her home, is relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.”
On the age issue, the Court relied on the school certificate and computed the age: “Date of Birth of the victim has been shown as 03.06.1987. Therefore, on the date of the incident, the age of the victim was 14 years, 9 months, and 9 days, meaning thereby that she was definitely less than 16 years of age.” It also noted: “there is no specific plea has ever been taken by the accused, that the victim was major…”
On the medical report, the Court declined to rely upon it, stating: “it has not been properly proved… it appears improbable that, being an Advocate Clerk, how he was having an opportunity to see the writing and signature of the Doctor.” It concluded: “this Court considers that the medical report has not been properly proved during the trial, and as such, this Court does not find it fit to consider this piece of paper (medical report).”
The Court then stated the legal position: “medical evidence is not a sine qua non for proving the case of rape” and “the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused” if it “inspires confidence.”
On delay, the Court held it to be explained by the circumstances and recorded: “the delay in lodging an F.I.R is reasonable and sufficiently explained by the circumstances of the case.” On alleged old litigation, it recorded: “it is difficult for this Court to infer…” and “this Court is unable to appreciate how such old litigation could motivate the victim… to lodge a false case…” Finally, it held: “testimony of the victim inspires confidence to this court as it does not suffers from any infirmity.”
The Court held: “this court does not find any reason to interfere in the judgment and order of sentence dated 20.11.2003 passed by learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dumka…” and accordingly ordered: “the instant Criminal Appeal… is, hereby, dismissed. He is directed to surrender forthwith, before the court concerned. Let the trial court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.; For the Informant: None
Case Title: Rabindra Prasad @ Rabindra Prasad Bhagat v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (Victim X)
Neutral Citation: 2023: JHHC:44542
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1816 of 2003
Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Rai
