M. D. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the appeal of the accused Ramesh aged 19 years who on his conviction under section 376 read with Section 511 of the I. P. C. , has been sentenced to three years RI. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the prosecutrix P. W. 1 Mst. Narbadabai, admittedly aged about 10 years or so was all alone in her parental house at about 10 a. m. on 10. 6. 1985 inasmuch as her mother had gone out to do her labourers job and the father had gone to the hospital to take medicine regarding his own ailment. The appellant-accused was stated to have come to the prosecutrix house and finding that her parents were away, caught hold of her. man-handled her and took her in the back court-yard of the house and after laying her down on the ground, tried to commit sexual intercourse with her but since Rukmanibai (P. W. 3) accidentally arrived at her house and since she saw the appellant accused attempting to commit rape, the appellant-accused fled away. Mst. Rukmanibai and the prosecutrix Narbadabai were stated to have gone to the house of neighbourer P. W. 4 Mst. Dropadibai and she was also apprised of the incident. The prosecutrix father had come back home at about 1 p. m. but he was not apprised of the incident. However, when the mother returned home after the days work at about 4 p. m. , the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her and also to her father. Thereafter the report was lodged at the Police Station on the next day morning at 9 a. m. The prosecutrix was medically examined. ( 3 ) AFTER due investigation, the appellant accused was put up for trial. The appellant accused abjured the guilt and contended that he has been falsely implicated due to ill-will. It is contended that he had purchased mangoes worth Rs. 4/-from Mst. Rukmanibai and had sent a five rupee note through the prosecutrix Narbadabai who did not refund back the balance of Rs. 1/- to him and on this issue Narbadabai abused him and he in turn gave her 2 or 3 slaps and thereafter had also a quarrel with her father Deoram. The trial Court, relying on the prosecution evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant- accused to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, the appeal. 1/- to him and on this issue Narbadabai abused him and he in turn gave her 2 or 3 slaps and thereafter had also a quarrel with her father Deoram. The trial Court, relying on the prosecution evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant- accused to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, the appeal. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant accused has stated that the prosecutrix has not been supported by Mst. Rukmanibai to any extent and, therefore, her oral testimony in the absence of any cogent corroboration is not reliable and more so for the reason that the medical evidence is absolutely of negative nature. It is also pressed that there was no reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR inasmuch as the Police Station was in that village itself; and the report could well have been lodged on that evening without any difficulty. ( 5 ) I have scrutinized the evidence on record. The prosecutrix is a teenaged girl and hence her oral testimony deserves to be scrutinized with abundant caution. She is found to have refuted the suggestion made during her cross-examination that she had a quarrel with the appellant-accused on the issue of refund of Rs. 1/- out of the five rupee currency note which was given to her by the appellant-accused for payment to Rukmanibai from whom he had purchased the mangoes worth Rs. 4/ -. This very suggestion is found to be taken as a defence in the appellant accuseds examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No doubt, the prosecutrix has narrated the whole incident which is in keeping with the FIR recorded on the next day. According to her, Mst. Rukmanibai had accidentally arrived at the place and had seen the - incident. Further according to her, she and Mst. Rukmanibai had gone to P. W. 4 Dropadibai to apprise her about the alleged attempt of the appellant-accused to commit rape on her. Mst. Rukmanibai who has entered the witness box as P. W. 3 found to have turned hostile and as such, she has not corroborated the prosecution story at all Even P. W. 4 Dropadibai has not corroborated the prosecutrix version in the matter of attempted rape. She has only admitted this much that the prosecutrix had complained to her that the appellant accused had just harassed her. She has only admitted this much that the prosecutrix had complained to her that the appellant accused had just harassed her. Thus, her version does not relate at all to the attempted rape regarding which she might have been apprised. ( 6 ) NO doubt, the prosecutrix mother P. W. 2 Mst. Shantibai has deposed that when she had come back to home after doing the labourers job at about 4 or 4. 30 p. m. , the prosecutrix, had narrated to her the whole incident which Shantibai herself has also stated in great detail. Question is now, how far the prosecutrix version which is duly corroborated by her mother should be relied on in the matter of heinous offence of rape or attempt of rape. Abundant caution is necessary to ensure that there is no false implication. No doubt, normally, no girl or woman maligns herself and her family by laying an accusation against any person of this nature i. e. rape or attempted rape but the circumstances may well differ. Normally, I would have believed the version of the prosecutrix in the matter of the incident as corroborated by her FIR and so also by her mothers version to whom she claims to have apprised about the incident, but there are many snags in the case which makes the prosecution story highly doubtful. ( 7 ) IN the first place if the prosecutrix had been forcibly taken to the back court-yard and felled on the ground and if the male organ was attempted to be inserted in her vagina, then some external injuries were normally expected. However, none were found as is evident from the medical evidence (Ex. P-3a ). But as it is equally true that in quite a many rape cases or attempted rape cases, medical evidence, quite often, is found to be the negative despite the fact that there is m re than cogent and convincing evidence of the victim and of other witnesses in the matter of incident, who, obviously, in such cases, are believed irrespective of the negative nature of the medical report. Therefore, I would not attach much importance to the medical evidence of the negative nature, in the present case. Therefore, I would not attach much importance to the medical evidence of the negative nature, in the present case. ( 8 ) WHAT is surprising in this case is the fact that the prosecutrix father Deoram had come home at about 1 p. m. but the prosecutrix is not found to have apprised him of the serious incident which normally she should have. No reasons have been given by her in her evidence, as to why she did not report about the incident to her father. Incident is found to have been reported by her when Mst. Shantibai returned home at about 4 or 4. 30 p. m. But also then, neither the neighbours were apprised about the incident nor did the prosecutrix accompanied by her parents immediately rush to the Police Station which is in the same village and not far away. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the report of the incident was not lodged on the same evening and as to why the prosecutrix and her parents waited for the whole night till 9 a. m. on the next day morning to lodge the report. The possibility cannot be ruled out that during the intervening period, the prosecution story might have been concocted and manipulated or inculpation of the appellant-accused. Absence of prompt report for no justifiable reason demolishes the prosecution case and makes the statements of the prosecutrix and her mother totally unreliable. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, the appellant-accused deserves to be acquitted of the offence in question under the benefit of doubt. ( 9 ) IN the result, thus, the appeal is allowed. Setting aside the order of conviction and sentence as passed by the trial Court, the appellant-accused be and is now acquitted of the offence u/s. 376/511 IPC. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .