BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) WHILE functioning as the Officer-in-charge of the Moroda Police Station in the district of Mayurbhanj, the respondent stood his trial in the Court of Session being charged under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Codet) for having committed rape on Bad Dei alias Bindhani during the night of October 27/28. 1980, at the Chitrada Police Out-post. The respondent, it was alleged, accompanied by some other police officials, came in a jeep to the house of Ban in connection with a reported incident regarding assault on some police officials which had occurred on October 26, 1980 and took her, her uncle Parameswar and some others of her village to the Police Out-Post at Chitrada for interrogation. Ban was kept at the northern end while the others who had been taken to the Police Out-Post were kept at the southern end of the eastern verandah of the Police Out-Post. The respondent went to Bad at about 3. 00 A. M. , woke her up and caned her to accompany him, but when she did not agree, he pulled her by his hands and forcibly led her to the verandah of a lonely thatched house situated to the east of the Police Out-Post and committed rape on her. The next morning, the respondent sent the lady to the village tank escorted by a Police Constable where the lady took her bath and returned to the Police Out-Post and then she was sent to the hospital at Kisantandi for her medical examination being escorted by a Police Constable. On return to her village on October 29, 1980, she complained about the occurrence to her fathers brothers wife (P. W. 2) in whose house she had been residing then. Kasinath Soren (P. W. 5) took the lady to Baripada and got her medically examined in the clinic of a private medical, practioner (P. W. 3 ). The victim lady made a petition of complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baripada, on November 4, 1980. After enquiry, cognizance was taken and the respondent was prosecuted and committed to the Court of Session to stand his trial. The victim lady made a petition of complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baripada, on November 4, 1980. After enquiry, cognizance was taken and the respondent was prosecuted and committed to the Court of Session to stand his trial. ( 2 ) TO bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined six witnesses of whom, Ban Dei (P. W. 1) was the alleged victim of sexual assault and P. W. 3 was the private doctor who had examined her. Ramhari Hansda (P. W. 4) who had accompanied P. W. 1 had spoken about what he had seen and heard during the night of occurrence. The respondents plea was one of denial and false implication because of the action taken by him against P. W. 1 in connection with the investigation of the case registered against P. W. I and others for having assaulted police officials. He had examined four witnesses in his defence including a doctor (D. W. 1) who had examined P. W. 1 and the Circle Inspector of Police (D. W. 4) who had been camping in the same Police Out-Post during the night of occurrence. ( 3 ) ON a consideration of the evidence the learned trial judge found that the charge had not been substantiated. Accordingly, an order of acquittal was recorded. ( 4 ) THE learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has challenged the findings recorded by the trial court against the prosecution as unreasonable and unfounded and has submitted that the charge had been brought home to the respondent. It has been submitted by Mr. Mohanty for the respondent that the findings recorded by the trial court cannot be assailed and there is no case for interference in an appeal against acquittal. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons to follow, the order of acquittal is wholly justified and it would be reasonable to assume that the respondent had not been prosecuted, but persecuted because of the action taken by him during the investigation as the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. ( 6 ) FOR assault on police officials, a case had been registered against P. W. 1 and others and in respect of the report made by P. W. 1 as per Ext. ( 6 ) FOR assault on police officials, a case had been registered against P. W. 1 and others and in respect of the report made by P. W. 1 as per Ext. C on the basis of which a case had also been registered, investigation had been taken up by the respondent as the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. It would appear from the evidence that but for the intervention of the Circle Inspector of Police, the respondent wanted to effect the arrest of P. W. 1 in connection with the case against her. ( 7 ) AS rightly noticed by the learned trial Judge for the reasons recorded by him which Deed not be reiterated in this affirming judgment as it is not necessary so to do as laid down in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy and another1, the case presented against the respondent was an unreal and fantastic one. A charge of rape in respect of an act committed by the respondent had been alleged while the police officers and other officials including the Circle Inspector of Police, (D. W. 4) had been staying at the Chitrada Police Out-Post and not only P. W. 1, but also some other persons of her village had been brought to the Police Out-Post. It would be stand to common sense and never to reason that in such a situation, the respondent would ever dare to commit rape on a lady who had been brought to the Police Out-Post for investigation in connection with a case against her and a case reported by her. ( 8 ) SPEAKING about the occurrence, P. W. 1 had testified thus: By about mid-night between Monday and Tuesday next some police men came to my house, woke me and my uncle up and we came out. The accused present in the dock was among the policemen and he was sitting on the parapit wall of a well in front of my house. The accused and his police men brought me along with some others of the village namely Sohan, Natha, Ramhari, Ramesh and Parameswar (my uncle) in a jeep to Chitrada Police Out-Post covering a distance of about 2 miles. The kept all of us on the outer verandah of the out-post the eastern verandah. The out-post faces south. The accused and his police men brought me along with some others of the village namely Sohan, Natha, Ramhari, Ramesh and Parameswar (my uncle) in a jeep to Chitrada Police Out-Post covering a distance of about 2 miles. The kept all of us on the outer verandah of the out-post the eastern verandah. The out-post faces south. My companions slept on one part of the verandah while I slept on another part at a distance of about 3 cubits separated by pillar. The accused was sitting on a rope-cot lying outside in open below the verandah. About 2 or 3 hours after arrival at the out-post as I was lying there still awake, the accused called me by name and when I did not respond he dragged me up by the hands. He asked me to go to another place to which I declined. Then he forcibly took me to a cottage at a distance of about 150 feet east of that verandah within the out-post compound. He took me to the eastern verandah of that thatched hut. He asked me whether I would agree for asexual intercourse. I declined. He forcibly made me sit on the ground. Then he took my own legs on his thighs and then he rolled up my wearing clothes. Then he held forcible sexual intercourse with me after protracting me with face up on the ground. I resisted at which he threatened that he would assault and remove my skin. In course of the sexual intercourse the accused hit my both cheeks and caught hold of my breasts. The accused was wearing a lungi at that time. He was otherwise in bare body. He enjoyed sexual intercourse for about 5 minutes. I felt some mucus-like things inside me. The accused had taken a torch light to the place of occurrence and he gave it to me saying that I should keep the torch light on the cot where he was sitting and that I should thereafter sleep quietly where I had been sleeping. I returned from the place of occurrence while abusing the accused on the way that he forcibly held sexual intercourse with me and I complained this fact to my companions who were then sleeping on the verandah. The police constables present on the out-post verandah asked me to keep quiet and we remained quiet. I returned from the place of occurrence while abusing the accused on the way that he forcibly held sexual intercourse with me and I complained this fact to my companions who were then sleeping on the verandah. The police constables present on the out-post verandah asked me to keep quiet and we remained quiet. I sustained pain and injury on my both cheeks, both breasts, right thigh and both shoulders. I sustained biting injuries on the cheeks and his nails-scratches on the other parts. ( 9 ) IT as testified by P. W. 1, she had protested loudly at the conduct of the respondent and had struggled while the respondent dragged her, it could not be that such acts would not have attracted the attention of a large number of persons including her co-villagers who were at the Police Out-Post. According to P. W. 1, she shouted that the respondent had been misbehaving with her and has stated in her cross-examination that during sexual intercourse, she was shouting and the respondent had been threatening to kill her. Even on her way back from the place of occurrence at the Police Out-Post, she had been shouting that the respondent had forcible sexual intercourse with her, as deposed to by her. Strangely, none of the outsiders went near her. There is no evidence that such statements had been made by P. W. 1 although she had stated that P. Ws. 4, 6 and some others had heard about this when she had shouted and protested. ( 10 ) AS would appear from the evidence of P. W. 2, P. W. 1 had left her husband for about two years prior to the alleged occurrence and she had some times been staying with her father and some times in the house of P. W. 2. According to P. W. 2, on returning to her house, P. W. 1 complained before her that the Thana Officer had committed rape on her during the night and she (P. W. 2) sent P. W. 1 with Kasinath Soren (P. W. 5) to Baripada for medical examination. P. W. 2 had admitted that she had not informed anyone about what she had claimed to have heard from P. W. 1. P. W. 2 had admitted that she had not informed anyone about what she had claimed to have heard from P. W. 1. She did not even enquire from the persons who had accompanied P. W. 1 to the Police Out-Post to find out as to whether the allegations made by P. W. 1 were true and they had not told her anything regarding the occurrence. ( 11 ) P. W. 4 is one of the persons who had been taken to the Police Out-Post with P. W. 1, as sought to be established by the prosecution. According to him, during the night of occurrence, he heard the respondent asking P. W. 1 to sit down, but as she declined, the respondent forcibly made her to sit on the ground and then took both her legs and put them on his things and at that time, a Police constable, called him to return to the verandah. But in the circumstances in which P. W. 4 had been placed, it could not be that he would have remained silent had he witnessed what he claimed to have. On his own showing, none of them including P. W. 1 had made any allegation about the occurrence before the Circle Inspector of Police who was camping at the Police Out-Post and on their returning home, they had told nothing about the occurrence before the villagers. As would appear from the evidence of this witness, about 15 persons in all including the Constables had been sleeping on the verandah at the Police Out-Post. They had not protested when the respondent called P. W. 1 and took her to the thatched house and the complainant (P. W. 1) did not make any protest when the respondent dragged her nor did she shout on the verandah, as stated by P. W. 4 in his cross-examination. ( 12 ) P. W. 6 had testified about the respondent calling P. W. 1 at about 2. 00 to 2. 30 A. M. during the night and then leading her away from the verandah to a thatched house, but he had not stated that any protest had been raised either by him or by others. His statement that some time thereafter, P. W. 4 returned and complained before them that the respondent had sexual intercourse with P. W. 1 had not been spoken by P. W. 4 himself. His statement that some time thereafter, P. W. 4 returned and complained before them that the respondent had sexual intercourse with P. W. 1 had not been spoken by P. W. 4 himself. The uncle of P. W. 1 had been sleeping on the verandah at the Police Out-Post. Strangely; P. W. 6 did not wake him up even after hearing about the outrageous act of the respondent. The uncle of P. W. 1 would have naturally been informed about the occurrence by P. Ws. 1, 4 and 6 and if such an incident had occurred, he would have reported about it to the Circle Inspector of Police who had been camping at the Police Outpost. ( 13 ) IN connection with the investigation of the cases, the respondent had issued a requisition (Ext. A/i) for the medical examination of P. W. 1 and a Government doctor (D. W. 1) had examined P. W. 1 on October 29, 1980 and had noticed an abrasion on the right knee joint and a contusion on the right knee joint and these injuries were about 72 hours old. Ext. 4 is his report and Ext. A/i is the police requisition. This doctor has specifically stated that P. W. 1 had not complained before him at the time of her examination that she had been raped and, therefore, the allegation of P. W. 1 in her evidence that she did make an allegation of rape before this doctor cannot be accepted. The age of the two injuries given by the doctor would fit in with the incident on the 26th October; 1980, for which investigation had been taken up. Thus no injuries had been noticed by the doctor which could fit in with the theory of rape. ( 14 ) THE doctor (P. W. 3) having private practice at Baripada had noticed a number of injuries on the person of P. W. 1 some of which could be caused by human biting and some by human nails, as testified by him. Ext. 1 is his report. This doctor has put the age of the injuries at 37 hours. Normally, doctors give ages of the injuries as 12 hours, 24 hours, 36 hours and so on. Ext. 1 is his report. This doctor has put the age of the injuries at 37 hours. Normally, doctors give ages of the injuries as 12 hours, 24 hours, 36 hours and so on. D. W. 1 had examined P. W. 1 on October 29, 1980 and the age of the injuries given by him was such as would tally with the time of the alleged occurrence, as the prosecution sought to establish. For the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, the evidence of P. W. 3 has been discarded and I see no reason to take a different view. ( 15 ) DUE notice has been taken by the trial court of the undue and unexplained delay in making the petition of complaint in the Court. The occurrence had taken place, as alleged, during the night of October 27/28, 1980. The petition of complaint was made on November 4, 1980. There had been court working days in between. The explanation of P. W. 1 that she had been having temperature for which she could not make the complaint in time was not to be accepted and had rightly been rejected by the trial Court as on her own showing, being accompanied by P. W. 5, she had been to Baripada and there was, therefore, no reason as to why she would not make a complaint in the Court without delay. The first information report or petition of complaint in a criminal case is an extremely vital factor. It has been a settled principle of law that delay in making the report or complaint may often result in embellishment which is a creature of after-thought and the report or the complaint not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in making the report at the Police Station or making the complaint in the Court should be explained satisfactorily. This had not been done in the instant case, as rightly noticed by the learned trial Judge. The unexplained delay in making the complaint would certainly affect the bonafides of the case presented at the trial against the respondent. This had not been done in the instant case, as rightly noticed by the learned trial Judge. The unexplained delay in making the complaint would certainly affect the bonafides of the case presented at the trial against the respondent. ( 16 ) D. W. 4 was the concerned Circle Inspector of Police in charge of the area at the relevant time and D. W. 3 was the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Moroda Police Station of which the respondent was the Officer-in-charge. D. W. 3 has proved the relevant documents to which reference has been made in the impugned judgment. As his evidence and that of D. W. 4 supported by the documentary evidence referred to in the judgment would show, P. W. 1 had not been brought to the Police Out-Post during the night of October 27, 1980 and had in fact, been brought to the Police Out-Post for interrogation on October 29, 1980 and had, on the same day, been sent for medical examination. The evidence of D. Ws. 3 and 4 in this regard has elaborately been dealt with by the learned trial Judge and there is no point in repeating the same. As deposed to by D. Ws. 3 and 4, they had been staying with the respondent at the Police Out-Post and had been sleeping in the same room with the respondent during the night of October 27/28, 1980. In such circumstances, the occurrence, as alleged, could not have taken place even assuming that P. W. 1 had been brought to and bad remained at the Police Out-Post. There is, however, no reason to throw out the case of the defence that P. W. 1 had been brought to the Police Out-Post on October 29, 1980. There is no reason to discard the evidence of D. Ws. 3 and 4 supported by documentary evidence, such as, tour diaries, travelling allowance bills and jeep diary. ( 17 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I am at one with the learned trial Judge that the charge had not, been brought home to the respondent and he was entitled to an acquittal. ( 18 ) THE appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .