The single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that an offense involving sexual assault, and minor delay in the institution of FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. Further, if the testimony of the prosecutrix is cogent, reliable, and trustworthy, the judgment of conviction and sentence can be found on her solitary account.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the prosecutrix was going to the village Narodih and was intercepted by the appellant, who attempted to commit rape with her. Her salwar was torn when she was hurled to the ground. Some of the same train's passengers who were passing that route rescued her.
The case was registered under Section 376/511 of the IPC. In the present criminal appeal, the judgment of conviction passed under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is under challenge.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant submitted that there was an inordinate delay of four days in the registration of an FIR. It was furthermore submitted that the prosecutrix stated that the delay was due to the Panchayati, however, no details were given for the same. Also, the incident took place in the front of the house of her maternal uncle which is a public place. At last, it was submitted that her Salwar was torn, but it was neither produced nor seized by the Investigating Officer.
Contentions of the State
The state submitted that the delay was explained and in cases involving sexual offences caused stigma to the girl and his family members, therefore, the matter could not be immediately reported to the police.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble court observed that a minor delay in lodging an FIR does not necessarily spell doom for the prosecution in a sexual assault case. If the testimony of the prosecutrix is cogent, reliable, and trustworthy, the judgment of conviction and sentence can be found on her solitary account.
It was furthermore observed that after examining all of the prosecution's evidence, it became clear that there were major gaps in their case, raising doubts about the credibility of their witnesses. First of all, there is a five-day delay in filing the FIR; nevertheless, this is ascribed to the Panchayati meeting, which is purportedly conducted in the village. All other information about Panchayati, however, has been kept secret. The identities of those involved in the Panchayati are not disclosed, and no prosecution witness has been questioned. According to the prosecutrix, it wasn't there when Panchayati happened. The reason behind the delay in instituting the case is still unclear due to the lack of any Panchayati evidence.
The court noted that considering the unexplained delay in the F.I.R., and contradiction in the deposition of witnesses regarding the manner, it would not be safe to fully rely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim girl. Outraging the modesty of women is the essence of an offense under Section 354.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court set aside the judgment of conviction and allowed the appeal.
Case title: Manoj Kumar Mahto Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1011 of 2012
Advocates for the Appellant: Ms. Jasvindar Kaur Mazumdar, Advocate, Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
