Holding

The conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC is upheld as the FIR delay was not inordinate, lack of injuries does not preclude proof of rape, and the consistent witness testimonies are reliable.

Summary

The appellants, Sohan Singh and Mohan Singh, were convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC for gang raping the prosecutrix on 23 July 1983. The accused challenged the conviction on grounds of delayed FIR filing, absence of physical injuries on the victim, and alleged family enmity leading to false implication. The Supreme Court examined the testimonies of three key witnesses, finding them consistent and credible despite being recorded eight years after the incident. It held that the delay in lodging the FIR was reasonably explained and not inordinate, and that lack of external or internal injuries does not defeat proof of rape, especially when the victim was married. The Court also rejected the claim that family enmity could have motivated a false complaint, concluding there was no merit in the appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR vitiates the prosecution under Section 376(2)(g) IPC.
Whether the absence of external or internal injuries on the victim undermines the proof of rape.
Whether alleged enmity between the families can render the accusation false.
Whether the consistency of witness testimony recorded after eight years is sufficient to sustain conviction.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 376(2)(g)

Subjects

gang rapeFIR delayevidence consistencylack of injuriesfamily enmityconviction upheld

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S. C.R. 140

A SOHAN SINGH & ANR.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 971 of 2003)

8
OCTOBER 9, 2009

[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] ..
Penal Code, 1860:

c s. 376(2)(g) - Gang rape - Conviction by trial court,
confirmed by High Court - Pleas of accused regarding delay
in lodging FIR, absence of injury on the person of the victim
and their false implication due to enmity - HELD: Rightly
rejected by both the courts below - There is consistency in
the evidence of three prosecution witnesses and there is no
0
reason to doubt their evidence about commission of crime by
accused - Conviction and sentence awarded by courts below
confirmed.

The accused-appellants were prosecuted for
E commission of offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g) IPC on
the allegation that at about 7 p.m. on 23. 7.1983, when the
prosecutrix (PW-3) alongwith her sister-in-law (PW-1) was
returning home, both the accused ravished her. On the
alarm raised by PW-1, PW-2, the husband of the
F prosecutrix, reached there. He was assaulted by both the
accused appellants with the butt of the pistol. FIR was
lodged at about 8.30 a.m. the following day. The trial
court, relying upon the evidence of the PWs 1 to 31
convicted both the accused of the offence charged, but
G considering their age being 19 and 22 years, sentenced
them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years. Their
appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was, inter -
H 140
SOHAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF BIHAR 141

alia, contended for the appellants that the FIR was A
delayed and no valid reasons were assigned for the
delay; that no external or internal injuries were found on
the person of the victim; that there was enmity between
the two families which resulted in their false implications.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. A critical examination of the material
evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 discloses that they
all have said in one voice with regard to the manner in
which the offence was committed by the appellants. The c
said evidence inspires confidence, more so, when the
evidence was recorded almost after eight years from the
date of commission of the offence, yet, there is great
consistency therein. There is no reason to doubt the
truthfulness of the evidence so deposed by the said three 0
witnesses. The conviction and sentence awarded by both
the courts below is confirmed. [Para 12,13 and 18] [145-
E-G; 146-G]
1.2. It cannot be said that there has been inordinate
or unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. When FIR by a E
Hindu lady is to be lodged with regard to commission of
offence like rape, many questions would obviously crop
~ up for consideration before one finally decides to lodge
FIR, and only after giving it a serious thought the
prosecutrix must have decided to lodge the FIR. The F
delay has been found by both the courts below to be
properly explained. [Para 14] [145-H; 146-A-C]
1.3. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was already a
married lady and, therefore, it was not necessary that
some external or internal injuries should have been found· G
' on her person. No doubt, the doctor could not give any
definite opinion with regard to commission of offence,
but, it was not the case of the appellants that they had
not committed the rape; rather they had taken a plea of
consensual sex with the prosecutrix which has not been H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A believed by the two courts below. [Para 15 and 16) [146-
0-E]
1.4. Enmity between the two families would not lead
to such a serious consequence of lodging FIR of
commission of gang rape by the appellants. [Para 17)
8 [146-F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 971 of 2003.
From the Judgment & Order dated 17.12.2002 of the High
C Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 360 of 1991.
I

Anup Banerjee, Rajeev Kumar, Deba Prasad Mukherjee
for the Appellants.
Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Manoj Mishra for the
D Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Appellants, two in number, were
charged and prosecuted for commission of offence under
E Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') for
having committed rape on prosecutrix at about 7.00 p.m. on
23rd July 1983 by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai
in Sessions Trial No.94 of 1998 oecided on 26th September
1991, who found them guilty and awarded four years jail ~
F sentence to each one of them. The said judgment of the learned
Sessions Judge was subject-matter of challenge at the instance
of the appellants in the High Court of Patna by filing Criminal
Appeal No.360 of 1991 decided on 17th December 2002. The
appeal of the accused-appellants has been dismissed ~r:...i the
G ·conviction of the appellants under Section 376(?.)(g) of IPC has
been upheld and sentence of four years awarded by Trial Judge
has also been affirmed. Hence, this appeal.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is as under :

H On 23th July 1983 at about 7.00 p.m., P.W.3-prosecutrix
SOHAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF BIHAR 143
[DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
was returning home along with Shiela Devi, her sister-in-law, A
after giving fodder to cattle. After they had proceeded few steps
', from the place, Sohan Singh aged 19 years and his brother
Mohan Singh aged about 22 years waylaid them. Mohan Singh
confronted prosecutrix whereas Sohan Singh caught hold of
Shiela Devi. They threatened them on the point of pistol not to B
raise any alarm, otherwise they would be met with dire
consequences. Mohan Singh got in full grip of prnsE::cutrix and
forcibly took her to the nearby maize field. There;_he committed
offence of rape on the prosecutrix. Subsequently, Sohan Singh
also repeated the crime of sexual assault upon her. In the c
meantime, on alarm being raised, P.W.2 - husband of
prosecutrix came. He was assaulted by both of tHem, with the
butt of the pistol. He sustained injuries. Thereafter', some other
villagers came on the spot. Obviously, both the accused fled
away from the place of occurrence. D
...
3. The prosecution case was based on fatd bayan of
P. W. 3-prosecutrix.

4. P.W.3-prosecutrix did not lodge an FIR immediately.
The same was lodged on 24th July 1983 at about 8.30 in the E
morning. Reasons have been assigned by her as to why she
was not able to lodge the FIR immediate!~, which have been
...
found by both the courts below to be reasonable and plausible .

5. P.W.1- Shiela Devi has deposed that incident had taken
F
place about eight years back on one Saturday evening. On the
·said date, she, along with prosecutrix was returning home.
When both of them reached maize field of Garif Singh, Sohan
Singh took out his pistol and pointed it towards them. Other
accused Mohan Singh dragged prosecutrix in the nearby field
and committed rape. After coming out from the field, the other G
brother also went to commit the same but on commotion being
raised, husband of prosecutrix, viz., Ram Prakash appeared.
Ram Prakash was assaulted by both the accused and thereafter
they ran away from there. Both the accused were identified by
P.W.1. Even though she was cross-examined at length by the H
}
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A learned counsel appearing for the appellants but veracity of her
evidence could not be doubted.

6. The evidence of P.W.2-Ram Prakash also reflects that
his wife was raped about 7-8 years back on an evening by the
appellants. He was at home at that time. On hearing the alarm
B ~
of Shiela Devi, he went to the spot where he found that his wife '
'
was coming from the field towards its boundary. Her clothes
were torn. He further deposed that when he reached the spot,
both the appellants - Mohan Singh and Schan Singh - started ~·

assaulting him. He had also sustained injury on account of blow
c of the butt of the revolver/pistol. His wife then informed that they
had committed offence of rape. In the meanwhile, on account
of commotion, several other persons also reached the spot. In
his cross-examination, he has admitted that they belong to low
caste and several persons had gath~red after the incident to
D decide the future course of action. They then decided that FIR
..
should be lodged and then they had gone to the police station
with prosecutrix on the next day to lodge the FIR. He has also
deposed that after being assaulted by accused, he had gone
for treatment to Dr. Chandra Prakash.
E
7. Similarly, P.W.3-prosecutrix also deposed in categorical
terms with regard to the manner in which the offence of rape
was committed on her - first by Mohan Singh and the same
.... assault was thereafter committed by his brother Schan Singh .
F Thus, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 clearly
establishes that it was appellants who had committed rape/ .,
assault on the prosecutrix. Although copy of the evidence of
P.W.3 is not available in the paper book, we have scrutinized
the same from the original record available in the Regi~~. y.
G 8. Prosecutrix was also examined by P.W.6-Dr. (Smt.) B.
Mishra on 24th July 1983 who had not found any external or
internal body injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. Her
hymen was found to be ruptured. Her uterus was of normal size
and she was menstruating during that period. No dead or alive
H spermatozoa was found. Doctor was not able to give any
SOHAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF BIHAR 145
[DEEPAK VERMA, J.]

definite opinion regarding rape. A

9. Learned Sessions Judge, on appreciating the evidence
available on record, recorded a finding of commission of
offence of gang rape on the prosecutrix but, looking to the
tender age of the appellants at that time, awarded them B
sentence of four years each.

10. As m~ntioned hereinabove, the said judgment was
further challenged by filing an appeal in the High Court but the
same also met the fate of dismissal.
c
11. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously
contended before us that :
(i) FIR was delayed and no plausible or valid reasons
have been assigned for the delay;
D
(ii) no external or internal injuries were found on the
body of the victim or even on her private parts;
(iii) the prosecutrix failed to inform Dr. Chandra
Prakash who had examined her husband and given
him the treatment; and E
(iv) there was enmity between the two families which
has resulted in false implication of the appellants.
'i

12. We have critically gone through the material evidence
of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. They all have said in one voice
F
...... with regard to the manner in which· th~ offence was committed
by the appellants. The said evidence inspires confidence, more
so, when the evidence was recorded almost after eight years
from the date of commission of the offence, yet, there is great
consistency therein.
G
.>. 13. There is no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the
evidence so deposed by the aforesaid three witnesses.

14. As far as delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, we
are also satisfied that it cannot be termed to be inordinately H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A delayed. Even otherwise, in our considered opinion too, it
't-
cannot be said that there has been inordinate or unexplained
delay in lodging the FIR. When FIR by a Hindu lady is to be
lodged with regard to commission of offence like rape, many
questions~would obviously crop up for consideration before one
....
B finally decides to lodge FIR. It is difficult to appreciate the plight _,_
of the victim who has been criminally assaulted in such a
manner. Obviously, prosecutrix must have also gone through
great turmoil and only after giving it a serious thought, must have
decided to lodge the FIR. Precisely this appears to be the
c reason for little delayed FIR. As mentioned hereinabove, the
delay has already been found to be properly explained by both
the courts below. Thus, we are not required to deal with this
issue any more.

15. Admittedly the prosecutrix was already a married lady
D and, therefore, it was not necessary that some external or .
internal injuries should have been found on her person.

16. No doubt, it is true that doctor could not give any
definite opinion with regard to commission of offence, but, it
E was not the case of the appellants that they had not committed
the rape but they had taken a plea of consensual sex with the
prosecutrix which has not been believed by the two courts
below. • I"'

17. Enmity between the two families would not lead to such
F a serious consequence of lo.dging FIR of commission of gang
rape by the apDo!lants.
...
18. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are of
the opinion that tnere is no merit or substance in this appeal.
G The same is accordingly hereby dismissed. The conviction and
sentence awarded by the two courts below is hereby confirmed. f ~

Appellants are on bail. They shall surrender to their bail bonds
within seven days from today so as to undergo the remaining
part of the jail sentence.
H
R.P. Appeal dismissed.