JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th June, 1989, by which, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Karauli convicted the appellants under section 376(2) (g) IPC and sentenced each of them to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 21/2 months' R.I. 2. Smt. Halki lodged a written report at the Police Station. Mandrayal on 14-10-86 at 6.30 p.m alleging that on 13-10-86 in the noon at 12.0' clock she was working at her field when both the accused came and forcibly committed rape on her. When her brother-in-law Jagram reached at the place of occurrence who had seen them committing this and on his cry the accused-persons ran away. Mst. Halki was sent for medical examination and the clothes of the accused-persons were seized. The doctor took vaginal swab and sent all the seized articles through S.H.O. to F.S.L. for examination. The report of the F.S L. is Ex. P9. After concluding the learned trial Court found both the accused guilty and sentenced them as mentioned above. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the incident had taken place on 13-10-86 at 12 in noon. That very day Mst. Halki reported the matter to her husband and her mother-in-law. The Police Station is about 12 miles from the place of occurrence, but the report was lodged on 14-10-86 at 6.30 p.m. So there is delay in lodging the report and there is no explanation to this delay. 4. I have considered this argument and it has substance. Mst. Halki is a lady aged 20 years. According to her, this incident happened in presence of her brother-in-law Jagram who is of 25 years of age. Jagram had seen this incident and Halki reported the matter to her husband that very day but in spite of this fact, the report was not lodged on that very day. The Police Station is not very far-off. It is only 12 miles from the plate of occurrence. Then if we read the statement of Jagaram (PW 2) who has stated that the matter was reported at the Police Station on the very day when the occurrence had happened. So according to Jagram the report was lodged on 13-10-86 while according to prosecutrix Mst. Halki it was lodged on 14-10-86. Then if we read the statement of Jagaram (PW 2) who has stated that the matter was reported at the Police Station on the very day when the occurrence had happened. So according to Jagram the report was lodged on 13-10-86 while according to prosecutrix Mst. Halki it was lodged on 14-10-86. There is no explanation to this dispute but it is clear that if the statement of Jagram is taken as correct then Ex. P 1 is not that report which was lodged on 13-10-86. If the statement of Mst. Halki is believed to be correct then the statement of Jagram becomes false and there is no explanation to the delay in lodging this report. So in all circumstances the delay in lodging the report is fatal to the prosecution story. 5. It was argued that the lower Court has discussed the statement of Jagram in the judgment and has arrived at this conclusion that this Jagram was not present when this occurrence had happened. In this regard I have gone through the statement of Halki (PW 1) and Jagram (PW2). Mst. Halki (PW 1) has stated that she was working in the field, both the accused came, caught her and took her to the field and she was forcibly raped by both these persons. Firstly accused Rati Ram committed the rape who took about half an hour in committing this act and then Sita Ram committed rape on her who also took half an hour for this act. So according to Mst. Halki Rati Ram was the person who committed rape first and then Sita Ram and an hour was taken by both these persons. Now we see the statement of Jagram (PW 2) who has stated that after hearing cry he came to the spot and saw that Rati Ram was doing intercourse with Mst. Halki and when he cried both the accused ran away. He has not stated that in his presence Sita Ram had committed rape. So the difference in the statement of Halki & Jagram indicates that Jagram is not an eye-witness to this incident and the learned Sessions Judge has correctly found that Jagram was not present at the time of this occurrence. I agree with this finding and have no hesitation to say that Jagram was not at all present and he is a made out witness. 6. According to Mst. I agree with this finding and have no hesitation to say that Jagram was not at all present and he is a made out witness. 6. According to Mst. Halki (PW 1) occurrence took place in the field which is a rough surface. Two persons committed rape on her and for an hour she was raped but, in spite of this fact and the resistance which she must have exercised there must be injuries on the hack hip and back parts of the legs. The medical evidence discredits the statement of Mst.Halki. According to doctor Nand Lal Sharma (PW-4)there were 8 injuries. Two injuries were on the (-illegible) and face which were inflicted by teeth. Other injuries were contusion and abrasion. The position of the injuries is such that it cannot be believed that these injuries could be caused in such circumstance when the lady was subjected to sexual intercourse for an hour by two persons on a hard surface. Then Mst. Halki has not stated that the accused persons had bit her with their teeth. So the difference in the medical evidence and the statement of Mst. Halki also indicates that she has not stated truthfully in the Court and the entire case seems to have been concocted. 7. It was also argued that the F.S L. report has no value. The learned P.P. argued that the report clearly says that Mst. Halki was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. In this respect the record has been perused. According to the report of F.S.L. (Ex. P9), the pettycoat of Mst. Halki and vaginal swabs were sent for examination along with the chaddi (underwear) of accused Sita Ram and the report is that on pettycoat and chaddi human semen was found. Similarly is the opinion about vaginal swab. The argument is that there is nothing on the record that the pettycoat and the chaddi were seized by the S.H.O. and they were sealed in presence of the witnesses. The report says that sealed packet were received by the Laboratory for examination but there is no proof that the clothes were seized and sealed at the spot. Doctor Nand Lal Sharma (PW 4) stated that the pettycoat of Mst. Ha1ki was sent to Laboratory for examination along with vaginal swab and vaginal smear through S.H.O Mandrayal. The doctor has not stated that the S.H O sealed these clothes in his presence. Doctor Nand Lal Sharma (PW 4) stated that the pettycoat of Mst. Ha1ki was sent to Laboratory for examination along with vaginal swab and vaginal smear through S.H.O Mandrayal. The doctor has not stated that the S.H O sealed these clothes in his presence. S.H.O. Brij Mohan Singh in his statement has not stated that he seized the pettycoat of Mst.Halki and chaddi of Sita Ram. He has not stated that he sealed these clothes. The only statement of I.O. is that the vaginal swab, vaginal smear and clothes of Halki and Sita Ram were sent to F.S.L. through Ali Mohd., and according to him these clothes were seized by the doctor. So the S.H.O. has not seized the clothes. The doctor has not sealed the clothes. None had scaled the clothes. So sending unsealed packets to F.S.L. for examination is of no sense. The report of the F S.L. was that a sealed packet was received by them. I fail to understand that when the packet was not sealed how the sealed packet was received by the Laboratory. It shows that the report Ex P of the F.S.L. is absolutely a false report. No reliance can be placed on such report. Therefore, there is no proof corroborating the statement of Mst. Halki that she was raped by two persons. 8. In the case of Kakku @Kulu v. State of Rajasthan 1988(2) RLR 643 , the Division Bench of this Court has held that the articles sent for examination to F. S. L. were seized but they were not sealed so there is the possibility that the articles can be tempered after its seizure and this creates great suspicion in the entire prosecution story. In the present case the articles were not even seized. There is no evidence on the record about the seizure of the clothes of Mst. Halki and accused Sita Ram. Under such circumstance the F. S. L. report is of no value and it creates great suspicion in the entire prosecution story. 9. It was argued that the S. H. O. has prepared a site-plan and in this site- plan he It is not mentioned the place where Jagram witness was standing and from which place he witnessed the occurrence. It was the duty of the I. O. to show the place from where the witness had seen the occurrence. 9. It was argued that the S. H. O. has prepared a site-plan and in this site- plan he It is not mentioned the place where Jagram witness was standing and from which place he witnessed the occurrence. It was the duty of the I. O. to show the place from where the witness had seen the occurrence. As this has not been done the site-plan has no value and no reliance can he placed. He has relied on the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Rajasthan 1988 RCC 65 . This is a case of Division Bench of this Court and in this case it has been observed that -In the site-plan the places from where the witnesses have seen the occurrence have not been mentioned. So the presence of the witnesses at the site creates serious doubt and no reliance can be placed". 10. It was argued on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor that the statement of Mst. Halki is it reliable statement and on her solitary testimony conviction can be based. It cannot be disputed that on a solitary statement of the prosecutrix conviction can be based but in the special circumstances it must be proved that the statement of prosecuirix is of sterling worth and there must be some corroboration to her statement. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the statement of Mst. Halki is an unreliable statement. The delay in lodging the report shows that the story put up by Mst. Halki in the report is not a correct story. Her statement also does not create confidence. There is no corroboration even to her statement. Jagram (PW 2) contradicts her statement. So she is not a witness of sterling worth and in support of his argument he has relied on the case of Krishna and Others v. State of Rajasthan 1987 (2) RLR 858 . In this case the appellants were convicted for an under section 376 IPC and she was also raped by two persons. The prosecutrix was an unmarried girl of 16 years. But, according to doctor her hymen had old tears and she was accustomed to sexual intercourse. Therefore, it was observed that she was a girl of easy fluctuous and no reliance can be placed upon her statement unless it inspires complete confidence and is corroborated by direct or substantial evidence. The prosecutrix was an unmarried girl of 16 years. But, according to doctor her hymen had old tears and she was accustomed to sexual intercourse. Therefore, it was observed that she was a girl of easy fluctuous and no reliance can be placed upon her statement unless it inspires complete confidence and is corroborated by direct or substantial evidence. Delay in lodging the report was also considered and it was held that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case Mst. Halki is a married woman. She was accustomed to sexual intercourse. The contention of the accused-persons was-that she had prior to this occurrence ran away with the accused-persons. This fact is corroborated by the statement of (PW 3) Tunda who has stated that Halki had also run away prior to this occurrence. So the fact is that Halki is that type of lady who had once eloped from her house. Apart from this she was habitual for sexual intercourse. She reported the matter to her husband that very day but the report was lodged on the next day. The doctor does not say that she was raped. The medical evidence also discredits the statement of Mst. Halki. So in view of these facts supported by the decision of the case of Krishna (supra), the whole story of the prosecution becomes doubtful. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the case of Narain v. State of Rajasthan 1988 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 582 . This case also was under section 376 and taking all the circumstances into consideration it was held that the case has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances which were taken into consideration in the case of Narain (supra) are more or less similar to the present case. 13. In view of my above discussion the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. The judgment and finding of the trial Court is not correct. 14. As a result, the appeal is accepted. The accused is not found guilty of the under section 376 (2) IPC and he is acquitted. The accused is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******