JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, dated June 20, 1972, by which he convicted appellant Moolia of an offence under section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default whereof to further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. I have heard arguments and perused the record. 3. The facts of this case are that Ramsahai (P. W. 9) presented a written report bearing the thumb impression of Zinsi (P. W. 3) in the police outpost Baman was that the daughter of Zinsi aged 7-8 years by name Sanwali (P. W. 1), was raped by accused Moolia last night. This report is Ex. P/1. This report was entered in the roznamcha, Ex. P/3 by Kansingh (P. W. 11). He gave a copy of the report Ex. P/3 to Ramsahai (P. W. 9) and directed him to go to the police station, Gadb-mora. As the S. H. O. Gadhmora was out on duty, Sobharam (P. W. 10) made endorsement that the report will be presented when the station house officer returns to the police station. Dwarka Prasad (P. W. 4), head constable, incharge of the police station, Gadhmora, returned from Sawaimadhopur and registered a case under section 376, I. P. C. and handed over the investigation to Kansingh (P. W.11). 4. Kansingh (P. W. 11) forwarded Mst. Sanwali to the Medical Officer, Bamanwas. Dr. Awadhbehari Maheshwari (P. W. 5) examined Mst. Sanwali on 11.1.72. The substance of the injury report is that there were no marks of violence on the body of Mst. Sanwali. She had no difficulty in walking, but complained of pain during walking. Her hymen was not in tact, but its edges were not tender, swollen or red. The vagina of the child admitted the little finger. There was one tear ⅛" long present on the posterior wall of vagina. His opinion was that except the said tear there were no positive signs suggesting recent commission of act of rape. He further confirmed, vide Ex. P/2 that the tear indicated possibility of rape. As the girl was produced for medical examination on 11th January, 1972, it might be possible that the alleged rape took place on 9th January, 1972. 5. His opinion was that except the said tear there were no positive signs suggesting recent commission of act of rape. He further confirmed, vide Ex. P/2 that the tear indicated possibility of rape. As the girl was produced for medical examination on 11th January, 1972, it might be possible that the alleged rape took place on 9th January, 1972. 5. After investigation, the police presented a challan in the Court of Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur City, who committed the appellant for trial to the Court of Sessions, where he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. Mst, Sanwali (P. W. 1) was not administered oath, because she did not understand the sanctity thereof. She deposed that she had gone for defecating in a Arhar field in the evening. Accused Moolia came, caught her by hand and placed his another hand on her mouth. He pulled her inside the field, threw her on the ground, removed her chaddi and then violated her. She began to bleed in her private part. The accused then, ran away. When she cried, Durga and Ram Prasad came there and brought her to her home. There, she narrated the story to her sister, who in her turn related it to her father Zinsi (P.W. 3). Her mother was also present. In cross-examination this girl stated that the occurrence took place in the field of her uncle Moti, while the accused was working in the adjoining field of Heeralal Pandit- The accused dragged her about 40-50 paces and Arhar stems had caused irritations. On the place where she was thrown, there were Arhar stems. When she was thrown, she was in her senses but thereafter she became unconscious. Arhar stems had also entered her private part. A little later she however denied that she began to bleed on account of the entry of Arhar stem. She also denied the defence suggestion that she was falsely implicating the appellant on account of some quarrel regarding grazing of cattle by her people in the field of Heeralal. 7. Mst. Janki (P. W. 2) is the mother of Mst. Sanwali. She deposed that Sanwali came crying to the house and told her that accused Moolia had violated her. She was bleeding in her vagina and her clothes were also soiled with blood. She reported the matter to her husband Zinsi, who went caught and brought the accused. Moolia. 8. Mst. Janki (P. W. 2) is the mother of Mst. Sanwali. She deposed that Sanwali came crying to the house and told her that accused Moolia had violated her. She was bleeding in her vagina and her clothes were also soiled with blood. She reported the matter to her husband Zinsi, who went caught and brought the accused. Moolia. 8. Her father Zinsi (P. W. 3) deposed that when he heard about the occurrence, he and five other persons brought Moolia and confined him in a house. Sarpanch Sajjanpuri was called and Ram Sahai (P. W. 9) took the report Ex. P/1 to the police outpost, Bamanwas. 9. Sajjanpuri (P. W. 6) stated that on 10.1.72 he was called from his village Livali to the house of Mst. Sanwali. He noticed that Blood was oozing out from her vagina and her thighs were also blool staind. He asked Mst. Sanwali as to what had happened to her. She replied that accused Moolia had raped her in the field of Arhar. Moolia was also there. He asked him why he committed such an act with a small child, Moolia begged for pardon. In cross examination, this witness stated that Moolia was tied in both the hands and two persons were standing guard. 10. Panchia (P. W. 7) also deposed that the accused confessed and asked for pardon. He also admitted that Moolia was made to sit in the Chowk. 11. Birbal (P. W. 8) made a similar statement. He however, added that the private part of Mst. Sanwali was swollen, 12. The plea of the accused was that Zinsi and his daughter used to damage the crop of Heeralal. He was a servant of Heeralal. He used to object and annoyed by his objections, they falsely implicated him. 13. The learned trial Judge observed that he was conscious of the rule of prudence that there should be corroboration of the prosecutrix in a case of rape and corroboration was available in the evidence of the parents of the victim, and other witnesses before whom the accused made an extra-judicial confession. The learned trial Judge was of the view that there was absolutely no pressure of coercion exercised upon the accused to compel him to confess. The learned trial Judge was of the view that there was absolutely no pressure of coercion exercised upon the accused to compel him to confess. As regards the delay in the first information report, the learned judge observed that such type of delay usually occurs where the parents are reluctant to report such occurrence as the future of the child gets involved. In the instant case, the parents were illiterate as well and they first called the Sarpanch to apprise him of the incident. It was when Sajjanpuri, (P. W .6) arrived at the spot and verified the facts himself, that he sent a report to the police, In this manner, the delay was satisfactorily explained. He rejected the defence contention that the girl was injured not by the accused but by the Arhar plant. The learned judge believed her latter statement where she denied that no blood came out on account of the entry of the Arhar stem in her vagina. The learned Judge also referred to the site plan Ex, D/5 which shows that there were marks of the occurrence on the spot where the soil was smooth. There were no stems of Arhar plant, because the crop had not yet been harvested. The learned trial judge, therefore, refused to believe that Mst. Sanwali was in fact hurt by an Arhar stem. As regards the medical evidence the learned judge stated that the victim was hardly 10 years of age and in view of profuse bleeding from the vagina and cries of the child, the accused could not complete the act, but in a case of rape, mere penetration is sufficient to implicate him. In view of these findings, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the finding of the learned trial judge that the extra-judicial confession was not a result of coercion or pressure, was not correct. It is in evidence that when the alleged extra-judicial confession was made, the accused was a sort of a prisoner in the hands of the father of Mst. Sanwali and his hands were even tied with a rope. In these circumstance the extra judicial confession cannot be said to be voluntary I agree that when the accused asked for pardon and confessed his act, he was not a free agent. Sanwali and his hands were even tied with a rope. In these circumstance the extra judicial confession cannot be said to be voluntary I agree that when the accused asked for pardon and confessed his act, he was not a free agent. The evidence of extra-judicial confession, therefore, cannot be read against the accused. 15. It was next contended that the first information report was delayer and no explanation for the delay was available. According to the reports Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/3, the occurrence appears to have taken place on 10-1-72, while in the first information report Ex. P/4 the date and time of the occurrence is shown to be the evening of 9-1-72. The learned trial judge has also stated that the occurrence took place on 9-1-72. It appears however, that in this respect, the date mentioned in Ex. P/4 is more reliable. Accordingly to the statement of Sarpanch Sajjanpuri (P. W, 6) he was called at about 9-10 A. M. on 10-1-72. That shows that the occurrence took place on 9-1-72 Ram Sahai (P. W.9) has also stated that the report Ex. P/1 was handed over to him at 3 P. M. in the day. Ex. P/3 also shows that the report had landed in the police outpost. Bamanwas, at 6.15 P. M. on 10. 1.72. All this shows that the occurrence took place on 9.1.72.. That means that the report was lodged with a delay of 24 hours. There is no direct explanation available of this delay, but it appears that the delay was caused because the parents of the girl first approached the Surpanch and waited for him until he arrived the next morning. To my mind this explanation is not satisfactory at all and in such cases, delay always leaves scope for embellishment. 16. It was then submitted that the evidence of Mst. Sanwali is not a reliable piece of evidence and moreover it remained uncorroborated. In this connection the learned counsel cited State v. Roop Singh, 1966 R.L.W. Pg. 382 and argued that Mst. Sanwali is a child witness and it was dangerous in the extreme to rely upon her evidence, because such witnesses live not unoften in a climate of "make believe". Mst. Sanwali is a child of 10-12 years and, therefore, her evidence should not be believed unless corroboration is available. 382 and argued that Mst. Sanwali is a child witness and it was dangerous in the extreme to rely upon her evidence, because such witnesses live not unoften in a climate of "make believe". Mst. Sanwali is a child of 10-12 years and, therefore, her evidence should not be believed unless corroboration is available. It was next contended that according to her, her cries attracted Durga and Ramprasad, but both these persons have not been produced by the prosecution. It is also in her evidence that she first told about the occurrence to her sister, but that sister has also not appeared in evidence. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is not a case where corroborative evidence was not available, but there were two persons who immediately reached the place of occurrence, and brought the child home and could have provided the earliest and the best corroboration. The prosecution further suffers from the infirmity that they have with held these two witnesses. Which were most material in the circumstances of the case. Mst. Sanwali also stated that as soon as she was thrown on the ground she lost her senses. Then how was it possible for her that she could narrate what had happened to her after she lost consciousness. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that Mst. Sanwali was also not corroborated by the medical evidence. If she had been submitted to violence, then it was expected that there should be swelling or redness in her private parts. She herself admitted at one stage in her statement. That the stem of Arhar had entered her private part. Dr. Maheshwari (P. W. 5) admitted in cross-examination that the tear of ⅛" in the posterior wall of the vagina could be caused by a fall on a stem. 17. The learned counsel next urged that there was no injury on any part of the body of the accused. 18. The reply of the learned public prosecutor is that the suggestion of the Arhar stem is a figment of imagination and merely conjectural. As a matter of fact according to the site plan there was a crop of Arhar standing there and that belies that there were stems thereof. The Doctor found that the hymen was not intact. If the girl was not actually raped, then her hymen should have been found intact. As a matter of fact according to the site plan there was a crop of Arhar standing there and that belies that there were stems thereof. The Doctor found that the hymen was not intact. If the girl was not actually raped, then her hymen should have been found intact. The learned public prosecutor also submitted that there is no strong motive for falsely implicating the accused. As a matter of fact, no parent would like to invite disgrace of his child and that too an unmarried one by making such allegations unless they were true. 19. I have considered over the facts and circumstances of this case. Then is no doubt that the first information report was delayed though the police station was hardly four miles away. The father and his friends managed to catch hold of the accused, tied his hands and exhorted an extra judicial confession. The medical evidence is also not categorical. Indeed, if as Mst. Sanwali says, Ramprasad and Durga had come to her rescue, then those persons should have been produced in order to provide full and proper corroboration of her story. Though I do not agree that Mst. Sanwali should be disbelieved because she is a child witness, yet her story is not corroborated. The medical officer was of the opinion that there were no signs of rape except the tear noticed by him on the posterior well of vagina. But he had also stated that such a tear could be caused even by an Arhar stem. In these circumstances, it is not possible to come to a categorical conclusion that rape has in fact been committed on Mst. Sanwali. It is a case of doubtful evidence of which the benefit the accused must get. The argument that a father will not make such an allegation cannot replace proof. 20. The result is that this appeal succeeds, the conviction and the sentence of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the offence he is charged with. He is on bail and need not surrender.Appeal allowed. *******