( 1 ) THE appellant Mohammad was charged with having committed rape on a young girl Jayalaxmi aged about 15 years. He was tried by the sessions Judge of South Kanara, Mangalore, in S. C. No. 27 1976 and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. ( 2 ) JAYALAXMI (P. W. 10) is the daughter of Ishwar Bhat (P. W. 12 ). Ishwar Bhat was residing in a locality called Mujur-katte, a part of aithur village in Puttur taluk. P. W. 10 was studying in 4th standard in the year 1975-76 in a school at Sunkadakatte, about 1 miles from aithur village. On 22-5-1976, as usual, she went to the school in the morning and by about 12. 30 p. m. as it was a Saturday, the school was closed. She was coming back to her house in a road, a part of which runs through Mujur forest. When she had covered a distance of about 6 furlongs, it is stated that a person came on a motor-cycle from behind and stopped the vehicle in front of P. W. 10. That person asked her whether she would marry him and he would pay money to her. On her refusal, he dragged her into the forest for some distance and there committed rape on her. That person went away on the motor-cycle towarda place called Nettana. P. W. 10 went to her house weeping and told parameswari (P. W. 11), her mother, who, in turn, told P. W. 12 about what happened. P. W. 12 took P. W. 10 with him in a road going towards nettana in order to find out who was the culprit. On the way he met his brother Rama Bhat (P. W. 13) and Venkappa Gowda (P. W. 15), a person who had lands close to the place of incident. They came near a Railway cross and stood there in order to find out whether the culprit would pass that way. Balakrishna (P. W. 14), son of P. W. 12, also joined them. They waited there for about 2 hours. At about 4 p. m. they saw the appellant coming on a motor-cycle bearing No. MEX. 265 from the side of Otakaje quarters. They stopped the motor-cycle and the appellant got down. These persons asked the appellant whether he was the person who committed rape on P. W. 10. They waited there for about 2 hours. At about 4 p. m. they saw the appellant coming on a motor-cycle bearing No. MEX. 265 from the side of Otakaje quarters. They stopped the motor-cycle and the appellant got down. These persons asked the appellant whether he was the person who committed rape on P. W. 10. He flatly denied. In the meanwhile, p. W. 10 identified the appellant as the person who committed rape on her earlier. The appellant wanted to go away stating that he was innocent, but these persons caught him and a quarrel ensued. When the quarrel was in progress, three persons came running to the spot and intervened. According to the prosecution, the appellant ran away from the spot leaving the motor-cycle there. P. W. 13 went to the police station at Kadaba and lodged a complaint as per Ex. P-14 at 4. 45 p. m. Lakkappa Gowda (P. W. 17), Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case against the accused and sent the First Information Report, which reached the court at Mangalore on the following day at 8. 20 a. m. P. W. 10 was taken to Mangalore on that night. She was examined by dr. Kasturi (P. W. 1) at about 4 a. m. on 23-5-1976. She found no external injuries on any part of her body. She found the hymen ruptured and irregular tears in the hymen. There was bleeding from the vagina and that was due to menses. The vaginal smear of P. W. 10 was examined by Muktha Bai (P. W. 2 ). She did not find any semen. 2. As regards the credibility of P. W. 10, the learned trial judge, who recorded her evidence, has believed her. He held that her evidence found corroboration in the evidence of P. W. 15. ( 3 ) IT is contended on behalf of the appellant that the story of p. W. 10 is unworthy of credit. Her evidence finds no corroboration. Even assuming that P. W. 10 was a victim of rape, there is no satisfactory evidence that it was the appellant that committed rape on p. W. 10. I was taken through the evidence in the case. I am of opinion that the learned trial Judge was in error in his view. Her evidence finds no corroboration. Even assuming that P. W. 10 was a victim of rape, there is no satisfactory evidence that it was the appellant that committed rape on p. W. 10. I was taken through the evidence in the case. I am of opinion that the learned trial Judge was in error in his view. ( 4 ) IN cases of rape, the first question that arises for consideration is, whether the law requires corroboration. The Evidence Act nowhere says so. On the other hand, when dealing with the testimony of an accomplice, though it says in S. 114 (b) that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars, it makes it clear in S. 133 that;"an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. " ( 5 ) IN the case of a girl who is below the age of consent, her consent will not matter so far as the offence of rape is concerned, but if she consented, her testimony will naturally be as suspect as that of an accomplice. But. in all these cases a large volume of case law has grown up which treats the evidence of the girl ravished somewhat along the same lines as accomplice evidence though often for widely differing reasons and the position now reached is that the rule about corroboration has hardened into one 'of law. The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the Judge before a conviction without corroboration can be sustained. As pointed out by lord Reading in The King v. Baskerville , (1916) 2 KB. 658, 664-669 it would be impossible, indeed it would be dangerous to formulate the kind of evidence which should, or would, be regarded as corroboration. Its nature and extent must necessarily vary with the circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged. 658, 664-669 it would be impossible, indeed it would be dangerous to formulate the kind of evidence which should, or would, be regarded as corroboration. Its nature and extent must necessarily vary with the circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged. ( 6 ) IN this case the evidence of P. W. 10 makes it clear that when she was proceeding to her house, a person came on a motor-cycle from behind and dragged her into the forest and committed rape on her forcibly. She went to the house and informed this fact to PWs. 11 and 12. At that tune she did not mention to them the number of the motorcycle ; nor the description of the person. According to P. W. 15 he saw a motor-cycle standing in the road and no person was present near the motor-cycle. Then he saw P. W. 10 coming from the side of the school and going towards her house. After 10 minutes or so he saw a motorcycle ridden by a person going towards Sunkadakatte and taking a turn towards Otakeje road and then going towards Nettana. This evidence belies the story of P. W. 10. But, however, he has stated in his evidence that he noticed the number of the motor-cycle and gave that number to p. W. 12 when he met him. But the evidence of P. W. 12 is that he came to know about the number of the motor-cycle at the time of quarrel. It is clear from this admission that P. W. 10 did not know the number of the motor-cycle; so also P. W. 12 and P. W. 15 P. W. 15's version that the motor-cycle went towards Nettana in Otakaje road cannot be believed because, in between the road leading to the house of P. W. 10 and otakaje road, admittedly there was a forest. Therefore, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. that the evidence of P. W. 10 is corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 15, in my opinion is erroneous. Therefore, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. that the evidence of P. W. 10 is corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 15, in my opinion is erroneous. ( 7 ) IF the appellant was the person who committed rape on P. W. 10 and thereafter went away on a motor-cycle, it is difficult to imagine how he would be found near the 'raliway cross, which is hardly about two furlongs from the house of P. W. 10, two hours after the incident. There cannot be any doubt in this case that the appellant came from the side of Otakaje quarters and was stopped by P. Ws. 12, 13 and 14, who were in the company of P. W. 10. If the appellant was the person who committed rape on p. W. 10, he would not have stopped the motor-cycle; on the other hand, he would have sped away without stopping. Because p. W. 10 complained to her father that a man who came on a motorcycle committed rape on her, they thought that the appellant was the person. Very great doubt arises whether P. W. 10 identified correctly the person who committed rape on her, if at all rape was committed on her. ( 8 ) THE complaint Ex. P-14 was lodged at Kadaba police station at about 4. 45 p. m. Within an hour or so, the police arrived at the spot where the motor-cycle was lying. A mahazar of the place of the ajleged rape was drawn up. That mahazar does not indicate any such incident having taken place. At Kadaba there is a hospital to which place the police went along with the girl by about 8 p. m. where P. Ws. 12 and 14 were examined by a Doctor for the injuries sustained by them. No reason has been given why P. W. 10 was not subjected to medical examination there. However, P. W. 10 was examined by P. W. 1. As stated earlier, the evidence does not conclusively establish a case of rape. There were no marks of violence on any part of the body of P. W. 10. On the date in question she was in her periods. From the mere circumstance that the hymen was ruptured, it is not safe to hold that it was a case of rape. There were no marks of violence on any part of the body of P. W. 10. On the date in question she was in her periods. From the mere circumstance that the hymen was ruptured, it is not safe to hold that it was a case of rape. If it was a case of rape, there must have been some struggle, in which case one would have found some injuries on some parts on her body. ( 9 ) THE first information report reached the court on the morning of 23-5-1976. There is evidence in this case that the police had information about this case by 5 p. m. on that day. There were vehicles at their disposal as could be made out from the evidence. In Ex. P-14 the version given out by P. W. 10 is incorporated. The incident that happened near the Railway cross also is mentioned. In the entire body of the complaint, no reference is made to the name of the appellant. But strangely enough in the last line in Ex. P-14, the name of the appellant is mentioned. It is, therefore, clear that Ex. P-14 must have come into existence after a good deal of deliberation. The First Information Report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence. If the report in regard to the commission of an offence reaches the court after a good deal of delay, one possible explanation would be that the first information might not have been lodged to the police as sought to be made out. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, necessary that the delay in lodging the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. There is no explanation in this case. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant and acquit him. --- *** --- .