JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur, dated September 30. 1974 by which, appellant Shivia alias Shivjida has been convicted under section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of which, to further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 2. The incident occurred on the morning of August 30, 1972 in the village Pilwa. Mst. Bhanwari. a girl aged about 10 years was going to her field with her cow. In the way, appellant Shivia caught hold of her and ravished her, causing rupture of hymen and severe injury to vagina. Sometime after, Shayra mother of appellant Shivia came there and took her to the house. Bhanwari narrated the whole incident to Shayra, who made change her clothes and gave another 'ghaghara' and 'chundari' to Bhanwari. The incident came to the notice of Thakur Devisingh, Ex-Jagirdar of village and man of a great influence. Thakur Devisingh send for Bhojraj, father of Mst. Bhanwari and Ghewatsingh, the uncle of the appellant. He told them of the incident, Bhojraj was taken to the house of Mst. Shayra, he found her daughter and noticed blood stains on the clothes of his daughter and was much worried and without speaking to his daughter return to Devisingh. Ghewarsingh was told to reimburse medical expenses of the treatment of Mst. Bhanwari to Bhojraj. There -after, Bhojraj returned to his house and narrated the whole incident to his wife. Shayra brought her to the parents. Mst. Bhanwari then told the whole incident to her parents Mst. Bhanwari was profusely bleeding from her vaginal injury and some local treatment was given to her. The blood could not stop and, therefore, on third day she was treated by P. W. 8 Dr. S.C. Maheshwari and another doctor P. W. 19, Rajendra Prasad Modi. Bhojraj, P. W. 3 told the doctors that no offence was committed in respect of Mst. Bhanwari. An anonymous letter was sent to Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan and the letter reached at police station on 14.12.1972. The Station House Officer went to village Pilwa and after much persuasion could record the statement of Bhojraj. Ex. P/2, which was treated as the first information report. Bhanwari. An anonymous letter was sent to Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan and the letter reached at police station on 14.12.1972. The Station House Officer went to village Pilwa and after much persuasion could record the statement of Bhojraj. Ex. P/2, which was treated as the first information report. A case under section 376, I. P. C. was registered after usual investigation, challan was put up in the court of Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi. Mst. Shayra, the mother of Shivia was also named as accused for the offence under section 201,I. P. C. The Magistrate committed to the Sessions and the appellant was convicted for the offence under section 376, I. P. C., but Shayra was acquitted of the offence under section 201, I. P. C. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the public prosecutor for the state and perused the record of the case carefully. 4. I have gone through the statement of Mst. Bhanwari, P.W. 1 and her father Bhojraj, P. W. 3 and her mother Mst. Amiya, P. W. 2, Bhojraj P. W. 3 stated before the court that he was threatened by Thakur Devisingh not to make the report in the police. He was a very influential man and, therefore, no report, was made at the police station. However, in the police statement, Ex. P/2 the witness did not state about the threat and therefore, his statement at this count becomes suspicious. That apart, appellant Shivia was not the kith and kin of Thakur Devisingh and merely his servant. Therefore, Thakur Devisingh had no motive to exercise undue influence over Bhojraj, P. W. 3. In any case, the fact remains that the information of the incident was not given for 3 months and this delay in the prosecution case along with the other circumstances is, in my opinion, fettered to the prosecution story. Mst. Bhanwari, P. W. 1, of course stated about the rape committed on her but she has positively told some lies. She stated that she told the story to the doctors. It is contradicted by the evidence of the doctors. The witness falsely stated that the father reported the incident after 3 days of the occurrence and police came to village 8 or 10 days after the event to make the enquiry. 5. That apart the fact remains that Mst. Bhanwari P.W. 1. It is contradicted by the evidence of the doctors. The witness falsely stated that the father reported the incident after 3 days of the occurrence and police came to village 8 or 10 days after the event to make the enquiry. 5. That apart the fact remains that Mst. Bhanwari P.W. 1. was not medically examined with a view of find out whether she was ravished, rupture of hymen and tears in the vagina is not necessarily out come of rape. There may be other reasons for the injuries. Another infirmity in the prosecution case is that the accused could not be medically examined to find incriminating evidence of rape on his person. Moreover, Bhojraj P W. 3 made a specific admission to the doctor that her daughter was not the victim of an offence. All the circumstances taken to make the prosecution case suspicious. The possibility cannot be ruled out that if at all any rape was committed on Mst. Bhanwari, it was committed by very influential person and not by an ordinary man like Shivia, for whom such a crime would not be suppressed. The suppression of the crime, if at all it was committed can only be explained on the hypothesis that some influential man was involved in the crime and thereafter, due to exercise of undue influence, Bhojraj, P. W. 3 was compelled to usurp the matter about the delay in making the first information report. The following observations are relevant : (1) Mohan v. The State of Rajasthan (1978) Rajasthan Criminal Cases. P. 419) "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 1.4.72. No satisfactory explanation has been shown. The Supreme Court has held in Thulia Kail v. The State of Tamil Nadu. '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 over estimated from the standpoint of the accused. The Supreme Court has held in Thulia Kail v. The State of Tamil Nadu. '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 over estimated 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 after thought. 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 of 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." In this case on ground also the accused is entitled for benefit." (2) Nisar Mohammed v. State of Rajasthan. (1976 Cr. L. R. (Raj.) - 58) "The whole case is shrouded in doubt because no prompt report was lodged in the police station and the complaint to the Magistrate was also made after about 15 days of the occurrence." 6. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the offence of rape is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against appellant Shivia who is entitled to an acquittal. 7. I, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of learned trial court and acquit appellant, Shivia of the offence under section 376, I. P. C. He is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds, which are hereby discharged.Appeal allowed - appellant acquitted. *******