STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus GIAN CHAND

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 01-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-'<. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
GIAN CHAND 
MAY 1, 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND 
DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 376-Rape of minor girl by distant 
relation-High Court allowed the appeal of accused for delay in filing FIR-
Inconsistency regarding place of rape-Non examination of key witnesses- C 
Presence of injury on the victim and on the accused-Held, on facts and 
material, accused is guilty of committing rape-Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973-Section 154. 
Accused respondent committed rape of a minor gili. Trial Court found 
the respondent guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for 10 years and a 
fine of Rs. 5000. High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent-accused. 
In ap11eal to this Court, the a11pellant State contended that the High Court 
was in error in allowing the appeal of the respondent on the ground of delay 
in filing FIR, inconsistency in the statement regarding the place of rape, non-
E 
examination of certain witnesses, ra11ture of the hymen of the victim could be 
by fall, absence of corresponding injury on the private parts of the accused 
and the accused suffering from mental disorder . 
. Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Delay in lodging the.First Information Repm1 (FIR) cannot F 
be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and 
discarding the same solely on that ground. Delay has the effect of putting the 
court in its guard to search, if any explanation has been offered for the delay, 
and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to 
satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in G 
prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the 
prosecution case. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the 
court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground or disbelieving and discarding 
the entire prosecution case. The sequence of events soon,following the Crime 
and as described by the prosecution witnesses sound quite natural and H 
247 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A provides a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The High Court has not 
looked into the explanation offered and very superlicially recorded a finding 
of the delay having remained unexplained and hence fatal to the prosecution 
case. It is common knowledge and also judicially noted fact that incidents like 
rape, more so when the perpetrator of the crime happens to a member of the 
B family or related therewith, involve the honour of the family and therefore 
there is a reluctance on the part of the family of the victim to report the matter 
to the police and carry the same to the court. The delay in making the Fm. 
has been satisfactorily explained and therefore does not cause any dent in the 
prosecution case. [254-D-E-H; 255-A-C] 
C 
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors., [1996] 2 SCC 384 and Harpal 
Singh, [1981] SCC Crl 208, relied on. 
1.2. Minor inconsistency in the statement given by the mother of the 
victim, who is not an 
1eyewitness, was of no significance and caused no infirmity 
in the prosecution case when the overall narration of the incident given by 
D her is found to be natural and trustworthy. The Trial Court had rightly 
observed, relying on the evidence adduced and the observation made, that the 
room and the lintel are situated near to each other and therefore the so-called 
inconsistency was immaterial and insignificant. The High Court was not right 
in ignoring this finding of the Trial Court. [255-E; 256-A-B] 
E 
1.3. Non-examination of a material witness is not a mathematical formula 
for discarding the weight of the. testimony available on record howsoever 
natural, trustworthy and convincing it may be. The charge of with-holding a 
material witness from the Court levelled against the prosecution should be 
examined in the background of facts and circumstances of each case so as to 
F find whether the witnesses we:-e available for being examined in. the Court 
and yet withheld by the prosecution. The Court has to assess the 
trustworthiness of the evidence adduced and available on record. If the Court 
finds the evidence adduced worthy of beif\g relied c,>n, then the testimony has 
t~ be accepte(f and acted on though there may be other witnesses available, 
G who could also have been examined but were not examined. However, if the 
available evidence suffers from some infirmity or cannot be accepted in the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.