J.M.MALIK, J. - (1.)The trial court handed down the verdict of guilty and convicted and sentenced the appellant Satinder Singh to undergo minimum sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which he was to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 376 IPC. He was further awarded sentence of 3 years R.I. and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, failing which he was to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 4 months under Section 506 (II) of IPC. His co-accused and sister-in-law i.e. wife of his elder brother was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2- " years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.500/-, failing which she was to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 months under Section 363 IPC. She was further ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.200/-, failing which she was to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month for the offence under Section 342 IPC. Sentences awarded to the appellants were to run concurrently.
(2.)The report filed by the prosecution indicts the appellants as follows. On 11.04.1995, Smt. Shanti Devi, mother of the prosecutrix, PW3, was to deliver a child and, therefore, she was got admitted in J.P. Hospital by her husband Gajraj Singh. On 11.04.1995 at about 2.30 PM, the prosecutrix was present at the roof of her house. Appellant, Usha, a neighbour, called her and asked her to bring eyes' medicine lying in her room. When she went there, accused Satinder Singh, who was already present there, pounced upon her, gagged her mouth, bolted the door and threw her on the bed. Usha bolted the door from outside and informed Satinder that she had bolted the room from outside. The accused ravished her and intimidated her that if she disclosed anything to anybody, he would kill her parents. The bed-sheet got imbued with blood stains due to abovesaid sexual act. It was washed by accused Usha. On 13.04.1995, Usha again called her in order to know the position of her mother, who was still in hospital. Satender came there, Usha left the room and the prosecutrix was again sexually assaulted. The prosecutrix is stated to be 12 years old at the time of the abovesaid incident. On 07.06.1995, Smt. Sheela, a neighbour informed her mother about the abovesaid incident. The report with the police was lodged on 08.06.1995. Ultimately, the accused were caught in the meshes of law.
(3.)I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The key argument urged by the learned counsel for the appellants was that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. This is an indisputable fact that the FIR was lodged after a lag of about two months. In order to bring his point home, the learned counsel for the appellants has cited few authorities. In Ram Dittu v. State of H.P. 1990 (1) C.C. Cases 245 (HC), where some PWs were found inimical to the accused, there was absence of marks of violence on body of prosecutrix, there was unexplained delay in lodging F.I.R, prosecution version was found to be untrustworthy, the accused was acquitted. In Balwan Singh v. State of Haryana (PandH), 1994(2) C.C. Cases 322 (HC), the court held that there was inordinate delay of five hours in registration of FIR. Medical report stated that there were no mark of injury or struggle. The accused was acquitted on these grounds as well as on other grounds. In Ram Badal v. The State, 1987 C.C. Cases 383 (HC), the FIR was delayed by 24 hours. Prosecutrix was a married lady. She did not disclose the matter immediately to her close neighbours. Her husband when returned in the evening also did not lodge the FIR in the evening. Delay was not satisfactory explained, therefore the accused was acquitted.