RAM PAL SINGH, J. ( 1 ) -THE appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction recorded by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (Camp Bemetara), in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1985, decided on 25-11-1985. ( 2 ) BHANABAI is said to be aged about 35 or 40 years. She was a married lady and had no children though she had four hushands whom she had left about years back. She is a labour and is said to belong to Scheduled Caste. She was living with her brother in village Nawagaon. On 4-10-1984 at about 10. 00 a. m. while she was cooking her food the appellant is alleged to have entered her, hut, closed the door and raped her. She lodged a report in police station Saja District Durg. The report was lodged on 6-10. 1984 at 4. 00 p. m. Investigation started, her Sari was seized: she was examined by Dr. (Smt.) Malti Waghela (P. W. 1); her broken bangles were recovered from her residence; the appellant was arrested and was examined by Dr. Rohitdas Kumar (P. W. 2 ). After the challan, the appellant was prosecuted for having committed offences punishable under sections 454 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge after recording the evidence of the prosecution, in his Judgment, convicted the appellant under both the counts and sentenced him to four years rigorous imprisonment the a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and one yearts rigorous imprisonment under section 454 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial judge has based the conviction after placing reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix P. W. 3 Bhanabal and P. W. 5 Dhiraj. Dr. (Smt.) Malti Waghela (P. W. 1) could not discover any injury either on the body or on the vagina of Bhanabai. The Sari, which was sent for chemical examination, was not found to have any signs of spermatozoa. The appellant was found capable of performing sexual intercourse by Dr. Rohitdas Kumar (P. W. 2 ). Shobhnath Pandey (P. W. 6), Head-constable, has proved the first information report (Ex. P-5) an4 the seizure of the sari vide Ex. P-10. ( 4 ) KUM. The appellant was found capable of performing sexual intercourse by Dr. Rohitdas Kumar (P. W. 2 ). Shobhnath Pandey (P. W. 6), Head-constable, has proved the first information report (Ex. P-5) an4 the seizure of the sari vide Ex. P-10. ( 4 ) KUM. Indira Mahawar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the conviction of the appellant is had in law in view of the decision in Pratap Mishra and others v. State of Orissa1, According to her, in this case the Supreme Court held that if the injuries are not found on the body of the prosecutrix, then the inference should be drawn that the offence was committed with her consent. She further contended that the matter was reported after an inordinate delay and, hence, the version of the prosecutrix should have been rejected by the trial Court. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, Dr. (Smt.) Maid Waghela (P. W. 1) found the vagina of the prosecutrix to be petulint because she was aged about 35 to 40 years and was also used to sexual intercourse. According to her, two fingers easily passed through her vaginal orifice. The age of the appellant is said to be 46 years at the time of incident. Prosecutrix Bhanabai (P. W. 3), in her deposition, had stated that she put up struggle with the appellant while she was being raped. She is not a child but a grown tip woman. If she had put up any resistance to the alleged crime then admittedly either she or the appellant, or both. would have sustained some sort of injury upon their person. The absence of injury, either upon the person of the appellant, or upon the person of the prosecutrix, only indicates that either the allegation of rape is false- or the sexual intercourse was done with her consent. Dhiraj (P. W. 5) the nephew of the prosecutrix, states that he had gone to take his bath, but he had forgotten to carry soap along with him. Hence, when he returned to pick up the soap, he saw the appellant coming out of the hut of the prosecutrix. As the prosecutrix was howling rape, he caught hold of the appellant and assaulted him. On hisshouts the villagers also assembled and they also assaulted the appellant. Hence, when he returned to pick up the soap, he saw the appellant coming out of the hut of the prosecutrix. As the prosecutrix was howling rape, he caught hold of the appellant and assaulted him. On hisshouts the villagers also assembled and they also assaulted the appellant. If the appellant was apprehended in such a manner, then why he was not being taken to the police station by P. W. 5 Dhiraj and the villagers? If the allegation of rape was true, then why not Dhiraj (P. W. 5), who is the nephew of the prosecutrix did go to the police-station, either alone or with the prosecutrix, for lodging the report. The report was lodged on 6-10-1984 at 4-00 p. m. Admittedly the distance of Police-Station from the place of incident is 18 Kms. but what were the prosecutrix and Dhiraj doing from 10. 00 a. m. of 4-10-1984 till the whole day of 3-10-1984. The whole drama smacks or either connection of sexual Intercourse with consent. ( 6 ) A judicial mind is always eagre to search for corroboration from any direction whatsoever, for ascertaining the truth. The delay in lodging the first -information report is Inordinately delayed Information which does not assure a judicial mind and does not guarantee about the truthfulness of rape. Absence of any Injury upon the person of the prosecutrix or the appellant, is another factor, which deprives the prosecution of an Important corroboration. According to the Chemical Examiners report the Sari seized from the prosecutrix was not found to be soiled the spermatozoa os seminal discharge while the contention of the prosecutrix was that the appellant had discharged semen inside her vagina. To hide this defect and make up the absence of corroboration the prosecutrix seems to have been instructed to say in her testimony that after rape, she washed off her Sari. Unfortunately this fact is absent altogether in the first information report (Ex. P-5 ). This belated introduction of washing the Sari after rape smacks of concoction and also of deliberation and consultation. To my mind the testimony or Bhanabal P. W. 3) is bereft of any corroboration. Dhiraj P. W. 5) is her nephew. His testimony has to be looked into with great caution. P-5 ). This belated introduction of washing the Sari after rape smacks of concoction and also of deliberation and consultation. To my mind the testimony or Bhanabal P. W. 3) is bereft of any corroboration. Dhiraj P. W. 5) is her nephew. His testimony has to be looked into with great caution. A judicial mind when satisfied that the testimony of the prosecutrix smacks of concoction shall not convict the accused appellant merely because the prosecutrix howls rape and her voice attracted Dhiraj (P. W. 5 ). ( 7 ) SHRI B. P. Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent State has strongly contended that the prosecutrix was a Harijan lady that the Supreme Court in recent pronouncements, has dispensed with the theory of prompt logging of the first-information report or the necessity of any corroboration. Facts differ from case to case. Appreciation of the evidence has to be only with the intention of finding out truth and nothing but the truth. To my mind, in this particular case, the absence of any corroboration in any form convinces me. Even it the appellant is guilty of having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, then the only conclusion is that it was with her consent only. ( 8 ) THE upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the Impugned judgment are set aside. The appellant, if in custody, be set free immediately. .