Y. B. SURYAVANSHI, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Surechand has preferred this appeal against the judgment and finding dated 13/10/2003 of the Court of Shri B. P. Goraha, 1st Additional, Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in S. T. No. 47/ 83, convicting the appellant under section 376 I. P. C. He has been sentenced to undergo five years RI. ( 2 ) P. W. 1 Hemi Bai is wife of P. W. 2 Lalchand. They reside in village Harnakhedi, which is about 24 kms. from P. S. Umreth (Distt. Chhiodwara ). The appellant Surechand is nephew of the couple, being son of the brother of P. W. 2 Lalchand. At about 8 a. m. on 16/12/1982, P. W. 1 Hemibai (prosecutrix) was going with a bundle of corn to get it grined at the nearby village Badiwada. It is alleged that, while she was all alone at a place near the river, the appellant came from behind. He caught hold of her she was felled down and thereafter, raped. She raised a hue and cry but the accused gagged her mouth. After the sexual act, the accused fled away towards the field of D. W. 1 Bhagchand with whom, at the relevant time, he was employed as a labourer. The prosecutrix went to the field of Bhagchand, which is undisputedly adjacent to her own field. She disclosed to D. W. 1 Bhagchand that she has been molested by Surechand, Afterwards, her husband P. W. 2 Lalchand wanted to assault the appellant, but Bhagchand pleaded to spare him. The village Kotwar P. W. 3 Qudia, was not available in the village. Hence, though the Incident occurred on Thursday the 16th December, 1982, the report (Ex. p. 1), by the prosecutrix, was lodged on Saturday, the 18th December 1982. The prosecutrixt was sent for medical examination, and she was examined by P. W. 10 Dr. (Mrs.) Pandey. No external-injury was found. According to the lady doctor, there was pregnancy of 30 weeks, and since she was habituated to sexual act, the lady doctor was unable to give any definite opinion about intercourse (medical report Ex, p. 15 ). Similarly the appellant was examined by P. W. 5 Dr. Thakur, but no injury on the penis or other part of the body was found (medical report Ex. p. 5 ). The chadi and sari were also seized during investigation. Similarly the appellant was examined by P. W. 5 Dr. Thakur, but no injury on the penis or other part of the body was found (medical report Ex. p. 5 ). The chadi and sari were also seized during investigation. But presence of seminal stains and spermatozoa was not detected. Patwari P. W. 7 Jagablal prepared a map, P. W. 9 Mishra investigated the case and ultimately, the accused was charge-sheeted. ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 376 I. P. C. The defence case is that or denial. Furthermore, it is stated that the bullocks belonging to D. W. 1 Bhagchand had strayed and damaged the crop of the complainant in the neighbouring field which had resulted if a quarrel with the appellant, who was, allegedly, assaulted by P. W. 2 Lalchand. Thus he has been falsely implicated. ( 4 ) THE learned trial Court held, that there was delay in lodging F. I. R. , because instead of unnecessarily waiting for the Kotwar, the prosecutrix and her husband could have lodged a report forthwith. However, he further found, that the statements of the prosecutrix is further corroborated by the evidence of her husband P. W. 2 Lalchand, and that ordinarily no woman would make such kind of allegation of rape which would bring disrepute to the family. Placing reliance on the above evidence, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced. ( 5 ) BOTH counsel heard. Record perused learned counsel, Shri Datt, had assailed the findings on various grounds, which are considered herelcifter. It was urged, that the prosecutrix is healthy female, aged about 25 years, and there was fully grown up pregnancy of 30 weeks. The evidence of P. W. 1 Hemi Bai indicates that she was violently thrown down in the river-bed and in these circumstances, sexual act could not have been performed without damaging the pregnancy. Of course, there is no evidence to the effect that due to advanced pregnancy, there has been an abortion or otherwise any damage to pregnancy. The evidence of P. W. 10 Dr. (Mrs.) Pandey Indicates, that there was not even a scrat of an injury on the body of the prosecutrix. Similarly, the evidence of P. W. 5 Dr. Thakur indicates, that there was no injury found on the body of the appellant. The evidence of P. W. 10 Dr. (Mrs.) Pandey Indicates, that there was not even a scrat of an injury on the body of the prosecutrix. Similarly, the evidence of P. W. 5 Dr. Thakur indicates, that there was no injury found on the body of the appellant. There is abundant case law saying that in the absence of any injury on the body of the prosecutrix or the accused, consent to the alleged ace could be inferred. On the other hand, there are decisions to the effect that absence of injuries, in itself, is not a circumstance to infer consent, if otherwise, the evidence of the prosecutrix is found satisfactorily reliable. Thus, each case ultimately is a decision on its own facts. What is important in this case is that, according to the prosecutrix, she was violently thrown on the ground, the place was a riverside which had pebbles, and some minor injuries on her body were naturally expected, but are absent. It is equally important that there was no injuries of any resistance, as one would expect on the occasion, on the body of the accused. These are the telling circumstances which could not be lost sight of in appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix. As stated earlier, there was no damage to the pregnancy. The learned counsel, Shri Datt, referred to Pratap Mishra v. State of Orissa, wherein, the prosecutrix was pregnant. This is also a case in which sexual act was committed with woman having advanced pregnancy. Coitous may be possible or permissible even in advanced pregnancy hut with all delicacy and softness. But if the sexual act, as is alleged to have been done in the instant case, was violent, then the results would have been obvious. ( 6 ) SO far as corroboration of the statement of the prosecutrix is concerned, it is looked upon as a rule of caution and not as a rule of Law. See Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan. In the instant case, the prosecutrix asserts that immediately after the sexual act, she went and informed D. W. 1 Bhagchand. But, according to Bhagchand, the prosecutrix had only complained about the damage caused to the crops of bullocks. Obviously, therefore, the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the evidence of D. W. 1 Bhagchand. On the contrary, she has been contradicted by the above evidence. But, according to Bhagchand, the prosecutrix had only complained about the damage caused to the crops of bullocks. Obviously, therefore, the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the evidence of D. W. 1 Bhagchand. On the contrary, she has been contradicted by the above evidence. Coupled with the above circumstance, the recapitulate, absence of injury on the prosecutrix, absence of injury of resistance ordinarily expected on the accused, absence of any damage to the pregnancy and the contradiction viz. a. viz the evidence of D. W. 1 Bhagchand, there is inordinate delay in lodging the F. I. R. also. I am aware that delay, in itself, would not be a ground to throwaway the prosecution story, if it is reasonably explained. In Harpal Singh v. State of H. P. , delay in F. I R. was condoned and explained. That was a case where the honour of the family was involved. There was hesitation and reluctance. In the tradition-bound, non-permissive society in India, even to admit that any such incident has ever occurred, as there is a danger of being ostracised by the society. But in the instant case, without any hesitation, the prosecutrix on her own showing, complained about the incident to D. W. 1 Bhagchand and subsequently, to her hushand P. W. 2 Lalchand and they went to lodge a report without any hesitation. But the explanation for the delay is that the Kotwar was out of the village. Turning to the evidence of P. W. 3 Gudia, Kotwar, I find, that in para 3 he had deposed that he had gone to another neighbouring village Bindarai on Thursday, and returned in the evening. But again on Friday he visited another neighbouring village Pura and returned in the evening. On both the evenings, he was available at his house. He did not live far away from the house of the prosecutrix and, even earlier he could have been contacted. He was ultimately contacted on Saturday and, therefore, obviously, there is delay of three days in lodging the FIR, which has to be considered along with other infirmities referred earlier. ( 7 ) THE learned trial Court, as well as the learned Dy Govt. Advocate, referred to the decision in Bhoginhai, Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat. He was ultimately contacted on Saturday and, therefore, obviously, there is delay of three days in lodging the FIR, which has to be considered along with other infirmities referred earlier. ( 7 ) THE learned trial Court, as well as the learned Dy Govt. Advocate, referred to the decision in Bhoginhai, Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat. Accordingly, it was urged (hat this woman could not have falsely implicated the accused merely to wreak vengeance (assuming, that there was a quarrel about the damage caused to the crop by bullocks, because it is bound to bring disrepute to the family. By and large, Indian society is tradition-bound, and it is a non-permissive society as regards its out-look towards sex is concerned. At the same time, Indian society has varigated communities having different outlook towards sex. The community to which the parties belong- in this case is not so rigid in its out look and even such unfortunate incidents which otherwise would stride at the root of martial bliss in other families are not taken so seriously In their life style. There are quite a few such communities in Chatishgarh area. Looking to the basic infirmities and the probabilities factor, the statement of the prosecutrix is rendered unworthy of credence. ( 8 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhoginbhai Hirijbhai v. State of Gujarat (supra) In para 11 has observed: It would therefore be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration drawing inspiration from the rule devised, by the Courts in the western world. We are, therefore of the opinion that if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the Probabilities factor does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence, where having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming, subject to the following qualification Corroboration may be insisted upon when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is likelihood of her having levelled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self. preservation. Or when the probabilities factor, is found to be out of tune. preservation. Or when the probabilities factor, is found to be out of tune. ( 9 ) IN the result I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 376 I. P. C. against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. He is acquitted and the conviction of the appellant under section 376 I. P. C. and the sentence of five years R. I. are hereby set aside. His bail bonds are cancelled. He be released forthwith unless required to be detained in connection with some other case. .