Crl.A. 251 of 2006                                                                                                                                                     REPORTABLE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2006

ASHOK SURAJLAL ULKE ...... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1.    The facts of this case are as under:

1.1 The  prosecutrix,  P.W.  1,  was  studying  in  the  

Zila Parishad School at Mohali, District Gadchiroli.  

On the day of the incident, the accused met her and  

enquired as to how she had performed in the Mathematics  

paper in the examination.  P.W. 1 replied that she had  

not done too well on which the accused advised her to  

bring the question paper to his house.  Tukaram, P.W.  

2, P.W.1's father told her to go along with her younger  

brother Kapil,  P.W. 3.  The two, accordingly, went to  

the house of the accused which was near the school.  

They found that the accused was sitting outside his  

house and he directed them to go towards the school and  

told Kapil, to go out and bring some snacks from the  

shop of Naitam.  Kapil, accordingly, left for the shop  

whereafter the accused held the hand of the prosecutrix

Crl.A. 251 of 2006                                                                                                                                                     REPORTABLE 2

and pushed her towards the verandah of the school and  

raped  her.   The  shouts  of  alarm  raised  by  the  

prosecutrix could not heard by any one on account of  

the operating loud speakers all around as it was the  

day  of  the  Sharda  Devi  festival.   The  prosecutrix  

thereafter  returned  home  and  disclosed  what  had  

happened to her parents.  A report was, accordingly,  

lodged at the police station on the 11th of October,  

1997.  On the completion of investigation, the accused  

was charged for an offence punishable under Section 376  

of the Indian Penal code.   

1.2 The trial court relying on the evidence of P.W.  

1, as supported by the circumstantial evidence of P.W.  

2 and P.W. 3 and noticing that the medical evidence was  

uncertain as the Doctor had opined that it was not  

possible  to  give  any  opinion  as  to  the  rape,  

nevertheless held  that a case of rape had been made  

out.  A sentence of 7 years was, accordingly, imposed  

on the appellant.  An appeal taken to the High Court  

was also dismissed.  It is in this situation that the  

matter is before us after the grant of special leave.   

2. Mr.  Lambat,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant,  has  raised  several  arguments  before  us  

during  the   course  of  the  hearing.   He  has  first  

pointed out that the First Information Report had been

Crl.A. 251 of 2006                                                                                                                                                     REPORTABLE 3

lodged belatedly as the offence had taken place on the  

8th October, 1997 and the FIR had been lodged three days  

thereafter and that in any case the doctor's evidence  

did not support the commission of rape and at the worst  

(for the appellant) the matter fell under Section 354  

of the IPC.   

3. The learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra  

has,  however,  pointed  out  that  there  was  no  reason  

whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2  

and P.W. 3 and in fact no suggestion had come from the  

defence as to why they would give a false story.  It  

has  also  been  pleaded  that  in  the  light  of  the  

completely acceptable evidence of P.W. 1 even if the  

doctor's evidence with regard to the commission of rape  

was  slightly  uncertain  it  would  not  in  any  manner  

detract from the prosecution story.  

4. We have considered the arguments of the learned  

counsel.  We are of the opinion that in a case of rape  

the fact that the FIR had been lodged after a little  

delay is of very little significance.  There can be no  

doubt that an allegation of rape, and that too of a  

young child 15 years of age, is a matter of shame for  

the entire family and in many such cases the parents or  

even the prosecutrix are reluctant to go to the police  

to  lodge  a  report  and  it  is  only  when  a  situation

Crl.A. 251 of 2006                                                                                                                                                     REPORTABLE 4

particularly unpleasant arises for the prosecutrix that  

an FIR is lodged.  We also see from the evidence that  

P.W. 2 had first gone to the Head Master of the  school  

(in which the accused was a teacher) and he had advised  

him to wait for a few days to see if some thing could  

be done in the matter and it was only after having  

failed to get any reply from the Head Master that an  

FIR was lodged.  This also explains the fact that the  

doctor had found nothing to suggest that rape had been  

committed  and  was  not  in  a  position  to  give  any  

definite opinion on that account as the had incident  

happened  on  the  8th October,  1997  and  the  medical  

examination  had  been  conducted  on  the  11th October,  

1997,  that  is  after  three  days.   The  doctor  

nevertheless found that there was a minor injury on the  

finger which was about four days old and that the hymen  

was also missing.   

5. In the light of the very categoric statements of  

P.W. 1 as corraborated by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and in the  

light of the fact that no cause for  false implication  

has been pointed out by the accused, we find no merit  

in the appeal.  Dismissed. Accused is on bail.  His  

bail bonds are cancelled.  He should be taken into  

custody forthwith to undergo the remaining part of the  

sentence.  

Crl.A. 251 of 2006                                                                                                                                                     REPORTABLE 5

...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI JANUARY 27, 2011.