Crl.A.No.971/03

   REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.971 OF 2003

Sohan Singh & Anr. …..Appellants

Versus

State of Bihar …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Deepak Verma, J.

1. Appellants, two in number, were charged and prosecuted for commission  

of offence under 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 decided on  

26th September  1991,  who  found  them  guilty  and  awarded  four  years  jail  

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 and  

the conviction of the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC has been upheld  

and  sentence  of  four  years  awarded  by  Trial  Judge  has  also  been  affirmed.  

Hence, this appeal.

Crl.A.No.971/03

- 2 -

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

On 23th July 1983 at  about  7.00 p.m.,  P.W.3-prosecutrix  was returning  

home along with  Shiela  Devi,  her  sister-in-law,  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 raise  any alarm, otherwise they  

would  be  met  with  dire  consequences.   Mohan  Singh  got  in  full  grip  of  

prosecutrix 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 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.

3.The prosecution case was based on fard 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 morning.  Reasons have been assigned by her  

as to why she was not able to lodge the FIR immediately, 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 place about eight years  

back  on   one   Saturday   evening.  On   the   said  date,  she,  along  with

Crl.A.No.971/03

- 3 -

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 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  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 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 Sohan Singh – started assaulting him.  He had also sustained injury on  

account of blow 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 gathered  after the  incident  to  decide the future course of action.  They then

Crl.A.No.971/03

- 4 -

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.   

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 Sohan Singh.  

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 Registry.

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 spermatozoa  

was found.  Doctor was not able to give any definite opinion regarding rape.

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 sentence of  

four years each.

10.As mentioned hereinabove, the said judgment was further challenged by filing  

an appeal in the High Court but the same also met the fate of dismissal.

Crl.A.No.971/03

- 5 -

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;

(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  

(iv)there was enmity between the two families which has resulted in false  

implication of the appellants.

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 with regard to the manner in which the  

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.

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 delayed.  Even otherwise, in our considered  

opinion too, it cannot be said that there has been inordinate or unexplained delay

Crl.A.No.971/03

- 6 -

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 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 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 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 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.

17. Enmity  between  the  two  families  would  not  lead  to  such  a  serious  

consequence of lodging FIR of commission of gang rape by the appellants.

18.Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are of the opinion that there is  

no   merit   or  substance  in   this  appeal.   The  same  is  accordingly  hereby

Crl.A.No.971/03

- 7 -

dismissed.   The conviction and sentence awarded by the two courts below is  

hereby confirmed.  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.

…..............................................J. [V.S. SIRPURKAR]

…...............................................J. [DEEPAK VERMA]

New Delhi. October 09, 2009.