STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BABULAL

A (Doctor), held that accused was guilty of offence of rape and convicted him u/s376 IPC. However, accused was acquitted u/s. 506 II IPC. Accused was sentenced to RI for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2,500/-. In appeal, High Court reduced the sentence to that already undergone (i.e. two months and three days), on the grounds that the B accused was illiterate agriculturist from rural area and fine of Rs.2,500/- was imposed on him. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The order of conviction of respondent-accused c recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court cannot be said to be faulty or illegal. The trial Court rightly held that the accused committed the crime. In her testimony on oath, prosecutrix narrated the incident. The trial Court rightly observed that the prosecutrix informed her husband about the incident, who in turn D contacted PW8-employer, but PW8 did nothing. The matter was also reported by prosecutrix to her mother-in-law who was blind. The trial Court rightly held that there was no unexplained delay in filing the complaint. The 'straightforward' evidence ofprosecutrix-PW5was believed by the Court and accordingly the accused was convicted. E The trial Court rightly rejected the defence. [Paras 7 and 13) (802-G-H; 803-A-B)

1.2. If a court of law finds evidence of prosecutrix truthful, trustworthy and reliable, conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of her testimony and no further corroboration is necessary. F [Para 14) (803-C) ~