JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st March 1988. passed I by the learned Addl- Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the present appellant under section 376, I. P. C, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs- 5001 . In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Prosecution story unfolded in the written report, Ex. P. 2, dated 27th May, 1988 that on 13th May 1985 accused Suraj Mal committed rape with Mst. Soni daughter of Puran Mal and author of the written report. On the basis of the written report Ex. P. 3, First Information Report was recorded at Police Station, Sodala. Dr. estimated the age of the prosecutrix as about to 10 years. Dr (Mrs ) Narendra Rajawat examined Soni on 30th May 1985 and prepared the report Ex. P. 7. She found the following injuries on the person of Soni : 1. Stains over external genetalis Nil 2. Injuries 1X1/2" healing scar ontor cheate Vulva NAN fibrasic (duration about 2 weeks hymen Intact) Vegina congested PV & PR Not done Discharge - Nil 3. She has opined that the injury is about 15 days old She has further opined that nothing can be said that Mst. Soni hed sexual intercourse at any time, The hymen was not ruptured. 4. Charge-sheet was submitted and on behalf of the prosecution 10 witnesses have been examined in the Court, P. W. 1 is a formal witness about the site inspection. P. W. 2 Puran Mal, is the father of the prosecutrix and is an eye-witness also. P. W. 3 Chothma is a formal witness P. W. 4, Soni, is the prosecutrix. P. W. 5 Shiv Prasad and P. W. 7 Heri Ram are the Investigating Officers. P. W. 6 Gopal Lal, P. W. 8 Dr. (Mrs.) Raiawat, P. W. 9 Dr. S.C. Vyas, have been examined by the prosecutrix. Dr. (Mrs.) Rajawat and Dr Gopa) Lal Yadav. have examined the prosecutrix, whereas, Dr. Vyas has examined the accused. Both the doctors have reported that the prosecutrix was of the age group of 7 to 10 years. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the the accused as referred above. 5. S.C. Vyas, have been examined by the prosecutrix. Dr. (Mrs.) Rajawat and Dr Gopa) Lal Yadav. have examined the prosecutrix, whereas, Dr. Vyas has examined the accused. Both the doctors have reported that the prosecutrix was of the age group of 7 to 10 years. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the the accused as referred above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of the court below on the following grounds : 1. That the incident is alleged to have taken place on 12th May 1985 and the First Information Report of the incident has been lodged on 27th May 1985, i. e. after 14 days of the occurrence. It was submitted that the police Station, Sodala is on the out-skirts of Jaipur City and the delay of 14 days in lodging the Information Report is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the opinion of the doctors also it cannot be said that even for months sexual intercourse has been committed by any person with Mst. Soni. 6. Mr. Shrimal, Public Prosecutor for the State has not said anything about the sexual intercourse and, submitted that they have stated that the opinion can only be given after receipt of the Forensic Laboratory is available on the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are the material contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix and in the statement of the father of the prosecutrix Material witness have not been examined He submits that adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of the prosecution witnesses. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the court below and submitted that the delay in lodging the First Information Report has been explained in the F.I.R. itself as well as in the statement of the witnesses Puran Mal, P.W. 2. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State also submits that ordinarily the persons are very reluctant in lodging the First Information Report in such cases where the question of life of the prosecutrix is involved. She may be victim of the society. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that there is consistent case of the prosecution that the rape was committed and, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case of the prosecution. She may be victim of the society. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that there is consistent case of the prosecution that the rape was committed and, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case of the prosecution. He has referred before me the statements of P. W. 4, Mst. Soni. 10. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Delay in lodging the First Information Report may be fatal some time In the instant case Socials Police station is on out-skirt of Jaipur City and it is in the Municipal area of Jaipur. The life of the people residing in Sodala is not a rural life but is urban life P.W. 2. Puran Mal, is the father of the prosecutrix and he has stated that he went on the spot and saw the accused committing rape with his daughter. Accused begged pardon. He further states that he went to call Chothmal and during that period accused left the place. He states that he was trying to find out the accused and, as such, he has not filed the First Information Report, earlier. In the written report Ex. P. 2, he has also stated that he was in the reach of the accused but he was not traceable as such, he has not lodged the first information Report However, the prosecutrix, P.W. 4, Mst. Soni. has stated that police came after two days of the occurrence. Learned counsel wants to show that there is inconsistency between the two. The second inconsistency shown by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has come with the case that the incident has taken place at 1 P.M. whereas, the prosecutrix says that the incident has taken place at 1 P.M. in the afternoon. Prosecutrix is a child witness, hence it will not be safe to discard the entire evidence only on this count. 11. The very important link which is missing in this case is Chaddi of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix admits that Chaddi was blood stained, but it has not been recovered. No explanation is fourth-coming why Chaddi has not been recovered. Even the Chaddi of the accused has not been recovered. The prosecution has come with a case that after the commission of rape accused dressed himself and went off. Prosecutrix admits that Chaddi was blood stained, but it has not been recovered. No explanation is fourth-coming why Chaddi has not been recovered. Even the Chaddi of the accused has not been recovered. The prosecution has come with a case that after the commission of rape accused dressed himself and went off. Similarly, that is also the case that the prosecutrix also dressed herself there should be some blood stains on anyclo the or even on the earth where the alleged rape was committed. No recovery or seizure has been made by the investigation agency. On the contrary, the First Information Report was lodged on 27th May 1985 and the prosecutrix was not produced in the hospital for examination even upto 30th May 1985 She was produced on 30th, i.e. after 4 days of the lodging of the First Information Report Thus she was produced after 17 days of the occurrence. There is also an allegation that the plot has been parchased in the name of Suraj Mal accused. Puranmal, father of the prosecutrix has stated that the plot is in the name of Suraj Mal and he is the co-sharer and, no transfer has been made in favour of Puranmal. The Medical evidence which is generally a corroborative piece of evidence, is not available in this case as the Doctor has failed to state that intercourse was committed even once with Mst. Soni, Doctor reserved the opinion and the same could never be submitted. Valva, amear etc. which were forwarded for chemical examination were not helpful to the case of the prosecution. In such circumstances, the delay of 14 days in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Enmity is a double edged sword and it can be used in any way. It is not understandable why the father of the prosecutrix. P.W. 2 Puran Mal, who is an eye-witness of the occurrence has not informed the Police and kept mun for 14 days after the incident In such circumstances, I am not inclined to believe the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly. P.W.2 Puran and P.W. 4, Mst. Soni. 12. In the result, the appeal is accepted The conviction and sentence awarded by the court below is set aside. Accused-appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******