The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P Hyd. v. Nemala Satyanarayana /Accused.

1. The offence is alleged to have taken place at 3 p.m on 25-4-1988 on the pathway. The report has been filed on the next day. The explanation for delay in lodging report is that the victim and her husband contacted elders and on their advice only they filed the report, Ex.P 1. But P.Ws 5 and 6 the alleged elders stated that the victim P.W 1 and her husband P.W 2, never consulted them and they never gave any advice. Normally in cases of rape there will be some delay in lodging F.I.R whether the victim is a married woman or not. There will be consultation amongst elders before rushing to police station as the offence to be reported will have a bearing on the conduct and character of the victim concerned. The delay in lodging complaints in rape cases cannot be equated to that of the delay in lodging complaint/report in other type of offences. In this case P.W 2, husband of P.W 1 appears to be the eye witness. But his presence at the scene of offence was not explained and so his evidence did not find favour with the lower court. He appears to be a chance witness. Therefore the lower court is justified in rejecting the testimony of P.W 2. In rape cases the evidence of prosecutrix assumes importance. The victim P.W 1 is a married woman and she is accustomed to intercourse. She stated that the accused had intercourse with her for about half-an-hour, he ejected semen and semen had also fallen on her clothes. Her clothes were sent for chemical examination and it was found by the authorities of the forensic laboratary that no seminial stains were noticed on the clothes of the victim. The medical evidence does not also fit in with the case of the prosecution. The evidence on record shows that there was no resistance from P.W 1 when the alleged act was committed on her. For the aforesaid reasons, the lower court is justified in acquitting the accused by extending the benefit of doubt and I do not see any reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the lower court. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.