JUDGMENT
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.
1. In this appeal the two appellants, namely, Siba Mohanta (appellant No. 1) and Jadumani alias Jadu Mohanta (appellant No. 2) seek to challenge the judgment dated 13.11.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T.Case No. 14 of 1987 convicting both the appellants under Section 376/34, IPC and sentencing them thereunder to suffer R.I. for 7 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, and in default, to suffer R.I. for one month more.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.2.1986 at about 7 P.M. P.W.2 Alekh Patra being the husband of the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Keonjhar alleging, inter alia, that on 16.2.1986 when his wife being P.W. 1 Kusum Patra was going towards the house of her parents to bring some rice, the two appellants appeared at the scene and forcibly raped her. After the said incident P.W. 1 returned home and narrated the incident to him. When P.W.2 went to the Police Station to lodge a complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Patna Police Station did not pay any heed to his complaint. For this reason, P.W.2 lodged a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police. The said complaint was lodged on 21.2.1986, which was later on forwarded to the Police Station concerned whereupon it was registered as an FIR. After usual investigation the Police submitted charge sheet against the two appellants under Section 376/34, IPC. In course of time, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Keonjhar.
3. On perusal of the materials on records, the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 376/34, IPC against both the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty.
4. In course of trial, prosecution examined in all six witnesses. On behalf of the accused-appellants one D.W. was examined. The plea of the appellants before the trial Court was that the case against them is totally false and has been instituted out of previous grudge. Further defence of the appellants was that about a month before the alleged incident of rape, appellant No. 2 lodged an FIR against the husband of the prosecutrix,namely, P.W.2 Alekh Patra for destroying Government plantation and out of that grudge P.Ws. 1 and 2 got this case registered against them. It was further claimed by the appellants that they were totally innocent and the allegations made against them were totally false and fabricated. However, on conclusion of trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as already stated.
5. P.W.1 Kusum Patra stated in her evidence before the trial Court that on the date of occurrence she was proceeding towards her father’s house to bring some rice. It was afternoon time. During the course of proceeding towards the house of her father, while P.W. 1 reached the out-skirt of village Nuapada at a lonely place in a hilly area she met these two appellants. Appellant Siba Mohanta caught hold of her from back-side. The other appellant-Jadumani Mohanta, who was coming with cow from the front side also caught her. From the road she was dragged and taken to a lonely place and they laid her on the ground and both the appellants undressed her and forcibly committed rape on her. She was struggling to resist. They committed rape on her one after the other. Appellant Siba Mohanta first committed rape on her and thereafter appellant Jadumani Mohanta committed rape on her as a result of which the prosecutrix sustained bleeding injury on her private part. After committing rape as aforesaid, both the appellants threatened her not to shout or cry and otherwise she would be killed and asked to go away. Both the appellants left the place and went away. After the said incident P.W.1 went to the house of her parents and narrated the whole incident to her mother. Her father was then absent as he had gone out for work. With some rice she returned to her house. Her husband was also absent from house as he had been to Pattabari village. The incident took place on a Sunday and her husband returned home on Wednesday after that Sunday. After her husband returned home, she narrated the entire incident to her husband. Her saree was stained with blood and semen. However, she washed her saree number of times. The said saree was seized by the Police in course of investigation. Four/five days after the incident, she was medically examined and before she was medically examined she had taken bath number of times. Appellant Siba Mohanta was working as a home-guard. She further stated in her evidence that though her husband reported the matter at the Police Station, Police did not take any immediate action and for this reason a complaint had to be lodged with the Superintendent of Police. So the entire prosecution case is based on the testimony of P.W.1. Her saree was examined by the Chemical Expert, but no stain of any semen or blood was detected thereon. During medical examination no mark of violence or injury was detected.It is true that a month prior to the alleged incident of rape a police case was lodged by appellant No. 2, Jadumani Mohanta against P.W.2, the husband of the prosecutrix and her other relatives. It is claimed by the appellants that out of that grudge this false case of rape was foisted against them.
6. Of course the doctor (P.W.5) in his evidence stated that on examination of female genitals he found that there were no stains discharged or bleeding present and the pubic hairs were not matted and there was no foreign hair present. Labia majora and labia minora were normal and intact and no injury detected. Hymen was opened and no fresh tear, but a healed up wound of 1/3″ at nine O’clock position present. Therefore, the medical evidence on record lends an indirect corroboration to the testimony of P.W. 1 that there was rape by both the appellants. Merely because the appellants lodged a complaint against the husband of P.W. 1 and others, I cannot readily conclude that the prosecution case is totally false. True that there was delay of 4/5 days in lodging the FIR by a lady because it involved social stigma and therefore such delay is normal and not at all abnormal. Apart from the evidence of P.W. 1 and the medical evidence as collected above, the evidence of P.W.2 also lends support to the prosecution story that P.W. 1 was raped by the appellants.
7. After considering the entire facts in its totality, I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 376/34, IPC and there is no reason to interfere with the same.
8. However, as regards the sentence, it appears that the incident occurred in 1986 and on conclusion of trial when the appellants were convicted and sentenced, they preferred this appeal way back in 1987. Since then about 18 years have elapsed. For this inordinate delay on our part to dispose of this appeal within a reasonable time surely the appellants cannot be blamed. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the sentence should be restricted to six months’ R.I. and the period of sentence undergone by them should be set off against the same. Each of the appellants shall pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed subject to modification of sentence as aforesaid.