JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was convicted for having committed an offence under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to three and half years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further two months' rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted under section 45, IPC and sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further one month's rigorous imprisonment with the direction that both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant used to visit the house of Shanker (P. W. 2). On 30-3-1972 at about 2 P. M. as usual, the appellant went to the house of Shanker. He found Karali, engaged in some domestic work. He found that no one was in the house except Kamli and, therefore, he committed rape on her. She cried and on hearing her cry, Kesha (P. W. 3) and Deva (P. W. 4) uncle and cousin of Kamli who were accidently going that way came near the house. They found the appellant running away. They attempted to catch him but he escaped. Kamli narrated the incident to these two persons. They kept quite. In the evening Shanker came to his house. Kamli told him about the incident. Shanker also kept quiet that night. On 1-4-1972 Shanker went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint (Ex. P. 1). On that day Dr. Mansingh (P. W. 7) who was on duty examined Kamli and found laceration of hymen. He also noticed reddishness in her private part. He took smear and Petticoat of Kamli and and sent them to the Chemical Examiner. The report of the Chemical Examiner was negative for Semen & Spermatozoa. There were the facts on the basis of which the prosecution sought to establish a charge of rape against the appellant. 3. The main evidence on which the prosecution sought to establish the charge was on the evidence of Kamli. The prosecution sought to adduce corroborative evidence in support of the story of Kamli by the evidence of Kesha (P. W. 3) and Deva (P. W. 4) who came to the scene of the occurrence hearing the noise to whom Kamli made a statement that the appellant was the person who committed rape on her. The prosecution sought to adduce corroborative evidence in support of the story of Kamli by the evidence of Kesha (P. W. 3) and Deva (P. W. 4) who came to the scene of the occurrence hearing the noise to whom Kamli made a statement that the appellant was the person who committed rape on her. Shanker father of Kamli who came in the evening was also examined to corroborate Kamli. 4. It is true that soon after the incident Kamli made the statement that she was the victim of rape by the appellant to Kesha, Deva and Shanker, therefore this evidence would be admissible under section 157 of Evidence Act as Corroborative evidence of Kamh's version. It is very difficult to rely on the evidence of Kesha, Deva and Shanker because they did not move the law into motion soon after they came to know about the rape. They took more then two days to lodge a complaint in the Police Station. Now the only evidence left is the evidence of Kamli herself. 5. The Supreme Court held in Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan, SCR 1972(3) 385. "That the Evidence Act no where suggests that corroboration is necessary. A woman who has been raped is not an accomplice. If she was ravished she is the victim of an outrage. If she consented, there is no offence unless she is a married woman in which case question of adultery may arise. 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 suspected as that of an accomplice. But in the case of the girl of 18 years of age, if she consented for sexual intercourse then no offence has been committed." 6. In this case Kamli has made an allegation that the appellant committed rape on her forcibly but there is not a single piece of circumstance in support of her statement. Doctor's evidence discloses that minor injury was either was due to sexual intercourse or otherwise also. However the doctor has categorically stated that if there was any sexual intercourse, it was five to six days earlier to his examination. Doctor's evidence discloses that minor injury was either was due to sexual intercourse or otherwise also. However the doctor has categorically stated that if there was any sexual intercourse, it was five to six days earlier to his examination. In this case the gist of the whole story is that she was ravished on March 30, 1972 which bears no corroboration at all. In other respects also if she was forcibly ravished, there should have been more injuries on her back and other parts of her body. The Medical evidence completely negatives her case. The Chemical Examiner's report belies her story because no semen or blood was found either on her private parts on or her Petticoat. There is no satisfactory evidence of any kind corroborating the evidence of Kamli. The evidence of Kamali herself is contradictory. If there was any sexual intercourse on the day in question by the appellant it must have been with the consent of Kamli. Here no complaint was lodged even after arrival of Shanker. This story must have been connected to implicate appellant falsely. The complaint was lodged even according to the prosecution on the morning of 1.4.1972. No satisfactory explanation has been shown. 7. The Supreme Court has held in Thulia Kail v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501 . "First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, the names of eye witness present at the scene of the occurrence and the names of the actual culprits. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets benefit of advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or connected story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained." 8. On account of delay, the report not only gets benefit of advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or connected story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained." 8. In this case on the ground also the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. 9. I, therefore, allow this appeal. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are set aside and he is acquitted. He is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith.Appeal Allowed. *******