Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Mr. Dutta contended that neither any document has been produced nor the said quack Mohan Pal of Dasmail has been examined to prove the alleged termination of pregnancy. As a matter of fact, the main issue involved here is whether there was any coitus between accused Sudhangshu and the victim girl and not the termination of pregnancy which is a subsequent event. The report (Ext. 6) of medical examination of the victim girl, done by P.W. 12 on 2.11.1998 reveals that her secondary sexual character well-developed, axillary hairs scanty, public hairs black and coarse, her vagina well-developed and it easily admits two fingers and there is no sign of old or recent tear of vagina detected. The above very report is suggestive of habitual sexual intercourse and absence of any injury on her private parts would tell its own tale and lends support to the above testimony of P.W. 1 of her involvement in sexual intercourse with accused Sudhangshu. Before the doctor also the victim girl narrated the entire incident that the said accused Sudhangshu promised to marry her on 11.09.1997 and committed intercourse for about eight times resulting in her pregnancy in 1997 and abortion by Mohan Pal in November, 1997.

13. Mr. Dutta further contended that the complaint was lodged in Court after about long 11 months and such abnormal delay having not been satisfactorily explained the prosecution story should be thrown out. The question of delay in lodging FIR is to be considered in the background of human factors involved. Mere delay in filing FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on that ground. In Garmit Singh's case, , it was observed: "The Courts cannot overlook the fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged". The case of Karnel Singh, , may also well be referred to. In the present case, the said accused Sudhangshu indulged in sexual intercourse with the victim girl on 11.09.1997 on an assurance to marry her and such coitus continued day after day for which she became pregnant and the pregnancy was terminated. There was attempt on the part of the de facto complainant to settle the matter for which salish was held on different dates. In such circumstances, the delay can be said to have been properly explained and no adverse inference can be drawn.

14. Therefore, having regard to the legal principle as discussed above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the above witnesses and thus finding of the Id. Court below that accused Sudhangshu committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl is sustainable.

15. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the said coitus between accused Sudhangshu and the victim girl was a rape within the meaning of first and second clauses of Section 375 IPC.

17. As discussed earlier, the evidence in all such cases is that of the victim herself. A glance to the evidence of P.W. 1 reveals that while working as a maidservant in the house of accused Khokan and Sandhya where accused Sudhangshu used to visit frequently she fell in love with accused Sudhangshu who after about a month indulged in sexual intercourse with her for the first time on 25th Bhadra, 1404 B.S. corresponding to 11.09.1997 expressing that he loved her and would marry her and thereafter such coitus took place on several occasions. If she would have been raped, as contended by her in evidence-in-chief, she would have immediately reported the matter to her Boudi (P.W. 10) at least or to the police and would not have been involved in further sexual intercourse with the said accused on several occasions. This very conduct on her part leads to suggest that it was a case of coitus with full consent. It is a settled rule that if a full grown girl consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continued to indulge in such activity until she becomes pregnant, it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact and the accused cannot be roped on a charge of rape. In this connection, the cases of Jayantirani v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1984 Cr. LJ 1535 (Cal.), Hari Majhi v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1990 Cr. LJ 650 (Cal.) and Uday v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 775, may well be referred to. Accordingly, finding of the Id. Court below holding the above-accused guilty under Section 376 IPC is erroneous and as such is not sustainable.