Bantu Thakur S/o. Devpujan Thakur Aged About 39 Years R/o. Permanent Address - Patan v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jamul, District - Durg
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32198-DB NAFR ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1621 of 2024 Bantu Thakur S/o. Devpujan Thakur Aged About 39 Years R/o. Permanent Address - Patan, Azad Chowk, Thana - Patan, District - Durg, C.G. Present Address Shivpuri Jaiswal Badi, District - Durg (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jamul, District - Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11 .0 7 .202 5 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court, Special Judge (POCSO Act), Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 137 of 2020, by which the 2 appellant has been convicted and sentenced with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner :- Conviction under Section Sentence Section 377 of Indian Penal Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. Code (for short ‘IPC’) 1,000/-, in default of payment of Section 506 Part II of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year fine, additional RI for 01 month and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 01 month Section 5(m) of the Life imprisonment (which means for Protection of Children from his natural life span) and fine of Rs. Sexual Offences Act, 2012 1,000/-, in default of payment of (for short, ‘POCSO Act’) fine, additional RI for 01 month 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on dated 16.07.2020, a written complaint (Ex.P-7) was submitted by the father of the victim/child in Police Station, Jamul, District Durg to the effect that on 16.07.2020, Bantu Thakur (accused/appellant) living in the neighbourhood, sent his son, the victim/child, who is 11 years old, to get Gutkha at around 3:00 pm and when his son brought Gutkha, accused Bandu Thakur took his son/victim to the field after asking him to catch a bird, opened his penis and put it in his son's mouth twice and started kissing. When the victim child refused, the accused threatened to kill him and his parents and grandmother, due to which his son was in panic, the accused had also given him Rs. 35/-. On the basis of said 3
Facts
written complaint, FIR (Ex.P-8) was registered against the accused/appellant under Crime No. 326/2020 for offence punishable under Sections 377, 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and investigation was started. 3. During the course of investigation, Crime Details Form was prepared vide Ex.P-1 and a visual map of the incident site (Ex.P-4) was prepared by the Patwari. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. During the investigation, after taking consent from the victim/child vide Ex.P-2 and from her parents vide Ex.P-9, the victim child was medically examined by Dr. S. K. Agrawal (PW-7) vide Ex.P-19. After getting the virility test of the accused done vide Ex.P-18, the underwear worn on the date of the incident was seized vide Ex.P-16 and the seized underwear was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, Chhattisgarh for chemical testing vide Ex.P-27 and receipt of the same was obtained vide Ex.P-28 and after chemical testing, FSL report was received vide Ex.P-29. The accused was arrested vide Ex.P-17. Documents related to the age of the victim were seized vide Ex.P-10 & Ex.P-12. Statement of the victim/child under Section 164 CrPC has been recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. After complete investigation, section 377, 506 IPC was registered against the accused. And section 3 (a) 04. 06 charge sheet number 319/2020 of POCSO Act was presented before the former presiding judge. 4. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 377, 506 IPC and Section 3(a), 4 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court, Special Judge (POCSO Act), Durg, wherein the case was registered as Special Criminal Case No. 137 of 2020. 5. Learned trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 506 Part – II of the IPC and Section 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt. 6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents in support of case of the prosecution. 7. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document. 8. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who had committed aforesaid offence, convicted and sentenced him in the aforementioned manner, against which the appeal under Section 415(2) of BNSS has been preferred by the accused/appellant. 9.
Legal Reasoning
this Court in Wahid Khan vs. State of M.P. 16 [Wahid Khan vs. State of M.P., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 9] placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan [Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1952 SC 54]. 14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.” 10.2. In Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana [Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130], it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 10.3. Who can be said to be a “sterling witness”, has been dealt with and considered by this Court in Rai Sandeep vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [Rai Sandeep vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21]. In para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29) “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is 17 the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other 18 attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 23. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Pankaj Chaudhary, reported in (2019) 11 SCC 575, it was observed and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that as a general rule, if credible, conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It was further observed and held that sole testimony of victim should not be doubted by Court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. In paragraph 29, it was observed and held as under: “29. It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. [Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra [Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 283]. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the “probabilities factor” does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. [State of Rajasthan vs. N.K. [State of Rajasthan vs. N.K., 19 reported in (2000) 5 SCC 30].” 24. In the case of Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 34, the Supreme Court observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It was further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. In paragraphs 6 and 7, it was observed and held as under: “6. We are conscious that the courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive 20 while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults. [See State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384] (SCC p. 403, para 21).] 7. It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. (See Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam [Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 635)].” 25. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the evidences of the victim (PW-1), father of the victim (PW-2), mother of the victim (PW-3), Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW-7), progress 21 report (Ex.P-10) and dakhil kharij register of the victim (Ex.P/13C), it is quite clear that the accused Bantu Thakur on 16.07.2020 at 15:00 hrs., at the place mentioned in Clause 5 (B) of the First Information Report, under the place of incident, Police Station Jamul, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, by luring the complianant's son/victim, age 11 years 02 months 16 days, who is a minor boy below 12 years of age, took him to a field, exposed his penis and inserted it in the mouth of the victim child twice and forced him to suck it, thereby committing a crime against nature by voluntary oral sex with a child below 12 years of age against the order of nature and caused criminal intimidation by threatening to kill the victim and his parents and grandmother. Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant. 26. Consequently, the convictions awarded by the trial Court under Sections 377, 506 Part – II of IPC and under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act are concerned, the same are hereby upheld. 27. So far as the sentences awarded under 377 of IPC and under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act are concerned, the same are also upheld, however, this Court is of the view that the sentence of life imprisonment which would mean imprisonment for rest of the natural life, is too harsh and instead, the same is converted to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. The imposition of fine amount and the default sentence is upheld. 22 28. The appellant is stated to be in jail since 17.07.2020 being the date of arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as modified above. 29. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 30. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra
Arguments
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case, moreover, medical evidence is also not supporting the case of prosecution, there is no 5 external or internal injury on the body of the victim boy, infact, neither medical evidence did not support the case of prosecution nor the doctor, who had examined the victim, had given any opinion regarding alleged commission of offence, as such, the prosecution has completely failed to prove the guilt of the appellant. He further submits that though as per case of the prosecution, the victim was minor on the date of incident, but this fact has not been proved by adducing lawful evidence. It is further submitted that since the prosecution has failed to prove by adducing cogent evidence that on the date of incident, the victim was minor, hence the finding recorded by learned trial Court in this regard is not sustainable. It has been contended that there are so many contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and except the statement of victim there is no credible evidence in support of his statement even deposition of his father is based on information given by the victim, therefore, only on the basis of deposition of the victim holding guilty to the appellant by the learned trial Court is not sustainable As such, criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the statement of the victim and other witnesses are fully reliable. He further submits that offence committed by the appellant was heinous in nature and thus, the trial Court had rightly convicted him. It has been contended that the trial Court had considered all the arguments made by the appellant and there was sufficient evidence to prove his guilt 6 beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the victim was minor and below 12 years of age at the time of incident, which is proved by the school admission and discharge register (Ex.P-13/C) which contains the date of birth of the victim as 30.04.2009. The evidence of the victim need not be required for any corroboration and on the sole testimony of the victim, the conviction can be made. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by learned trial Court and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 12. In the instant case, conviction of the accused/appellant is substantially based on the testimony of the victim (PW-1) and admission-discharge register (Ex.P-13/C). 13. As per case of the prosecution, date of birth of the victim is 30.04.2009 and on the said basis, on the date of incident i.e. 16.07.2020, the age of the victim was 11 years 02 months and 16 days. To substantiate this fact, the prosecution has produced progress report of Class-II (Ex.P-10) and admission-discharge register of the Government Primary School Shivpuri, Jamul, District Durg (C.G.), which was proved by the Headmaster of the said school Shri Mauji Ram Katendra (PW-5). This witness has clearly deposed in his deposition that in admission-discharge register information with regard 7 to the victim has been noted in Serial No.610 and he was admitted in Class-I on 18.06.2015. He has also stated that as per this Register, the date of birth of victim is 30.04.2009. Moreover, in progress report of Class-II (Ex.P-10), the same date of birth is mentioned. Further, the victim/child and his mother both have stated that date of birth of the victim is 30.04.2009. The appellant did not adduce any evidence to discard aforesaid age of the victim. 14. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, we find that learned trial Court has rightly held that on the date of incident the victim was child i.e. below the age of 12 years. 15. So far as the allegation with regard to carnal intercourse against the order of nature committed by the appellant with the victim is concerned, PW-1, who is victim in the present case, in his deposition has stated that he knew accused Bantu Thakur. He recognize him because he resides in his neighborhood. His date of birth is 30.04.2009 and he is studying in Class 6th. This witness has stated in his examination in chief that incident is of July last year. He was playing near his house in the afternoon, when Bantu Thakur came there and gave him 10 rupees and asked to bring Gutkha, then he brought Gutkha for him, then Bantu Thakur told him to go catch birds. Then he said that he will not go, then Bantu Thakur took him by the hand and said that his son is unwell, Bantu Thakur took him towards the field, and then took him inside Besharam bushes, after that Bantu Thakur was taking off his pants and inserted his penis in his mouth twice, and was kissing his mouth. When he shouted, Bantu Thakur pressed his mouth 8 and said take this 35 rupees and don't tell anyone about this or else he will kill him, his mummy, papa, grandmother. Then he was scared of Bantu's threat and was going to his house crying, when he met his father, then he told his father about all the things done by Bantu Thakur. After that he came home sitting on my cycle with his father and told the whole thing to his mummy, grandmother. 16. Dr. S.K. Agrawal (PW-7), who has examined medically examined the accused as well as the victim, has deposed that on 17.07.2020, when the accused was brought for medical examination by Constable Ishan No. 1559 of Police Station Jamul, he had examined him. He found that the secondary sex character was fully developed, pubic and axillary hair was found, external genitalia fully developed, smegma was absent and chemistric reflex was present. This witness has further stated that he did not find anything in the examination of the accused that he is incapable of having sexual intercourse. 17. This witness also stated that on the same day i.e. on 17.07.2020 itself, when the victim/child was brought for medical examination by same constable Ishan No. 1559 of Police Station Jamul, he had also examined him and found that there though was no wound in the victim’s mouth, but there was swelling in the upper part of the lip. He opined that the injury sustained by the victim was of normal nature and appeared to have been caused by a hard and blunt object. 18. In view of above discussion, we also affirm the finding recorded by learned trial Court that the appellant is the perpetrator of instant crime. 9 19. During course of submission learned counsel counsel for the appellant draw our attention towards some contradictions and omissions in depositions of the prosecution witnesses, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, while considering the reliability of the statement of the victim has held that “minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault was enough for conviction and does not require corroboration unless there were compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The Court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience”. The same was reiterated in Pappu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 176. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant during course of argument also raised an objection that except victim there is no credible evidence in support of his statement even deposition of his father is based on information given by the victim, therefore, only on the basis of deposition of the victim holding guilty to the appellant by the learned trial Court is not sustainable. 21. We are not inclined with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant as it is settled proposition of law that conviction of the accused could be based on sole testimony, without corroboration and it has also been held that the sole testimony of victim should not be doubted by the Court merely based on assumptions and surmises. 22. In the case of Ganesan vs. State, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 10 573, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the victim is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the series of judgments on conviction on the sole evidence of the victim. In paragraphs 10.1 to 10.3, it was observed and held as under: “10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay [Vijay vs. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191], it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: (SCC pp. 195-98) “9. In State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 550] this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para 16) ‘16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted 11 unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.’ 12 10. In State of U.P. vs. Pappu [State of U.P. vs. Pappu, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 594] this Court held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 597, para 12) ‘12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do.’ 13 11. In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384], this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. the court is duty-bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394-96 & 403, paras 8 & 21) ‘8. …The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating 14 officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. …The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. … Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. … Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. … *** 21. …The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for 15 evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.’ 12. In State of Orissa vs. Thakara Besra [State of Orissa vs. Thakara Besra, reported in (2002) 9 SCC 86], this Court held that rape is not mere physical assault, rather it often distracts (sic destroys) the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. In State of H.P. vs. Raghubir Singh [State of H.P. vs. Raghubir Singh, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 622], this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by