HYDERABAD: Refusing to interfere with the findings recorded by lower courts in an attempt-to-rape case, the Hyderabad High Court has held that the delay in lodging a complaint is not a valid ground to vitiate the case of prosecution, more so when the latter has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for the delay.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner (who moved the High Court) went to the house of one Babu to invite the family to the cradle ceremony of his daughter. But Babu was not at home. Taking advantage of the loneliness of his wife, the petitioner caught hold of her hand with an intention to commit rape on her. She sprinkled chilli powder on his face and escaped from his clutches. The incident was witnessed by three others.
On the following day, her husband lodged a complaint with the police who registered a case for an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC (assault or criminal force on woman with intent to outrage her modesty).
During the course of investigation, the section of law was altered to 376 of IPC (punishment for rape), read with Section 511 (punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment). After completion of the probe, the investigating officer filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner under the above-cited two sections of IPC before the trial court.
Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the assistant sessions judge, Peddapalli in Karimnagar district concluded that the petitioner was guilty, and convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of ` 2,000. Aggrieved, he preferred an appeal before the court of the district and sessions judge, Karimnagar. After re-appreciating the evidence, the sessions judge confirmed the conviction and the sentence awarded by the trial court.
The petitioner then moved the High Court against the order of the sessions judge. The petitioner's counsel contended that the lower court failed to appreciate the delay in lodging the complaint, ought not to have convicted him basing on the sole testimony of witness (victim) and that the findings recorded are perverse as the same are based on material which is not legally admissible. Besides, there is a delay of nearly 22 hours in lodging the complaint, he pointed out.
On the other hand, the public prosecutor submitted that the court can convict a person basing on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix (victim) if the same inspires the confidence of the court.
The prosecution has assigned cogent and valid reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint. The prosecutor further submitted that the findings recorded by the ;ower courts are fully supported by oral and documentary evidence available on record. Hearing the case and perusing the material on record, Justice T Sunil Chowdary, while relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the 2015 case of Deepak vs State of Harayana, said the court has to consider the delay in lodging the complaint basing on the nature of offence and circumstances under which it was committed.
"In cases of this nature it is not uncommon for the victims to discuss the details with their kith and kin such as husband and son, keeping in view their family reputation. No housewife will lodge a complaint to the police without consulting her family members. The possibility of lodging a complaint after arriving at the consensus with the family members is quite natural and probable. In those circumstances, delay in lodging a complaint by itself is not a valid ground to vitiate the case of the prosecution. The court has to take into consideration whether the prosecution has put forth cogent and convincing reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint", the judge observed. The judge made it clear that statement of prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration.