Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The victim was medically examined by P.W. 4 Dr. Rashmi Sagar, who did not find any mark of injury on the body of the victim. The uterus had come downwards and there was mark of operation on the stomach. There were signs of delivery. There was sign of incisions on her stomach. She has proved her report as Ext.Ka-4.

5. P.W.6 is Dr. Smt. Rajeshwari Sharma, who has proved the discharge slip of the victim. In her statement, she has stated that on 25.11.2009, the victim wife of Sanjai was admitted in J. N. Medical College gynecological department. She submitted the bed head ticket before the court and further stated that the victim was admitted at 8.15 p.m. The victim was attended previously by a 'dai' and it was her first pregnancy. She was seven months pregnant and was bleeding for the last three hours. She was polio affected on both legs, since she was ten months of age, as depicted by the victim. The victim was operated on 9.20 a.m. The baby was upside down, who was born dead. The child specialist was consulted but the child could not be saved. The patient was discharged in satisfactory condition after the operation. When this doctor proceeded on leave, she was attended by Dr. Nisha. Since the patient was handled by a 'dai', she was infected and due to other complications, the child had died. Even the doctor, who had examined the patient, could not get heart beats of the child. The anesthetic was also called in the O.T. This witness has proved the bed head ticket as Ext. Ka-7.

12. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R., hence the whole prosecution story is concocted. It has been submitted that the matter was reported to the police as late as 12.12.2009 when the pregnancy was got terminated and the victim was being raped for the last many months. Hence, the delay in lodging the report is fatal for the prosecution case.

13. As far as the delay is concerned, in the report, it has been mentioned that the victim and the informant are orphans. Their parents had died and the aunt(mausi) of the victim namely Lajja was living with the victim. The informant himself was working in Madhya Pradesh and he could know about the occurrence only after termination of the pregnancy of the victim. P.W. 1 Sonu has stated that his sister was physically disabled. The accused threatened the victim and raped her and when she became pregnant he and his parents took her to the J. N. Medical College, Aligarh and got her aborted. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that although his family is very big but his house is separate. The victim always lies on a cot. No one else sleeps in the house. He was informed about the occurrence by his other aunt (chachi) named Rani. This witness was put to the test of cross-examination but there is no reason for false implication of the accused. A note can be taken of the fact that the victim is physically handicapped girl whose both legs are polio affected. As per evidence of her brother, P.W.1 Sonu , she remained lying on the cot neglected and unattended. May be, at times, even her presence in the house would have gone unnoticed. Victim (P.W.2) has stated that she is physically disabled and unable to walk. She is suffering from polio. Her aunt (mausi) looks after her. She has specified that her aunt (mausi) is a sweeper in the Nagar Palika, Khair and attends her duty in shifts. This makes it all the more clear that Lajja, the aunt (muasi) of the victim, must be busy in her duty and the household affairs in the remaining time. While reiterating the other facts, the victim has stated that after she became pregnant as a result of rape by the accused, she told the fact to the parents of the accused at which the appellant and his parents assaulted the victim and took her to the J. N. Medical College, Aligarh and got her aborted. Then, she narrated the occurrence to her aunt (mausi) Lajja and aunt (chachi) Rani. They called her brother from Madhya Pradesh who came and then the incident was narrated to the informant who lodged the report. She has also stated that the brother-in-law of the victim has threatened her not to disclose anything to anyone. This witness has not cross examined on the point of delay in lodging the F.I.R. Thus, there being a series of acts of rape on a girl, I do not think the delay in lodging the F.I.R. remains unexplained. Thus, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is explained, which is very reasonable and plausible.