Victim Would Be In Shock After Rape, Can't Be Expected To Travel Alone At Night To Lodge FIR: Bombay High Court Upholds Man's Conviction

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that a woman, who is raped, would be in shock and thus she cannot be expected to travel alone in the night to the police station to lodge a criminal complaint against the accused person.Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap made the observation while upholding a man's conviction for raping a woman. The judge refused to accept the contention of the convict that there was a delay in lodging of the First Information Report (FIR) on part of the victim as she went to the police station on the next day of the alleged incident.However, the court noted the fact that the incident of rape took place on the night (7:30 PM) of March 25, 2017 while the victim went to the police station on the early morning of March 26, 2017 i.e. at 6:00 AM. The judge also noted the fact that the police station was almost 15 kilometres away from the victim's village and that she was living alone."The victim was helpless. One can visualize the pain, agony, and trauma suffered by her after this incident. She must have suffered a shock of her life on account of such an outrageous act committed by the appellant. The appellant was known to her. It was night time. In such a state of mind, a woman is not expected to travel alone in the night to the police station, which is 15 kms. away from her residence, for lodging the report," the judge said in the order passed on December 20 but made available on Friday. The fact that the victim went to the police station on the next day at 6:00 AM, the judge said was a very important circumstance consistent with her conduct. "It has come on record that, on the next day in the morning, the prosecutrix did not go to the police station alone. This fact would show that the prosecutrix needed the support of someone in this crisis situation. In view of this, the delay per se would not go against the case of prosecution," the judge held. Further, the bench the emphasised that in such cases, the courts while deciding the issue of point of delay in lodging FIR has to consider other factors, like trauma suffered by the victim, sociological factors along with other evidence also need to be taken into consideration. "It is to be noted that, in case of rape, no self-respecting women would come forward in the Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. The inherent bashfulness of females and tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are the factors, which the Court cannot overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital. Unless and until it is shown that there are compelling reasons, which necessitate corroboration of testimony, the testimony of the victim can be relied upon to base the conviction," the judge observed. According to the prosecution, the victim, a 35-year-old woman, lived alone in a village in Amravati district. On the date of incident, the appellant a known person to the victim, barged into her house, while she was sitting in the courtyard of her house and embraced her and tried to rape her. She however, kicked him and went inside her house and called a friend, who runs a grocery shop. By the time she called her friend seeking help, the appellant entered the house and pushed her on the floor and raped her. It was stated in the evidence that when her friend came to her house, he saw the appellant lying on her person and then he admonished the appellant after which he fled from the spot. Then, her friend consoled her and left for his shop and returned the next morning to accompany her to the police station. After going through the entire material on record, Justice Sanap said, "I do not see any reason to discard and disbelieve the evidence adduced by the prosecution. There is no substance in this appeal. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed."Appearance:Advocate AS Band was appointed to represent the Appellant. Additional Public Prosecutor PP Pendke represented the State.Case Title: Balya @ Rahul Sahebrao Lokhande vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 886 of 2022)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 35Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Victim Would Be In Shock After Rape, Can't Be Expected To Travel Alone At Night To Lodge FIR: Bombay High Court Upholds Man's Conviction

Narsi Benwal

Tags