Judgment : This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Arcot at Vellore made in C.A.No.146 of 1988, dated 112. 1989 confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner for the offence under Sec.376, I.P.C. (one count) and accordingly, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.500 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, awarded by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore, made in S.C.No.125 of 1987. 2 Brief facts of the prosecution case are stated as follows: P.Ws.2, 3,4 and 5 are the grown-up girls living along with their parents at Seththuvandai Village in North Arcot District, within the jurisdiction of Gudiyatham Taluk Police Station. Petitioner also belongs to the same place. While that being so, on 20.6.1986, the petitioner on making a misrepresentation to the above said witnesses that he was taking a cinema film at Madras and that he would arrange for them to get a chance to act in the film if they desired, prevailed over them. He brought them to Madras in a transport bus but reached Erucckancheri, hired a rental house, provided the witnesses with meals and made them to stay therein. The next day morning, petitioner took them to the houses of persons connected with the cinema field and brought them back to the rented house. They all had their meals and went to bed. It was the further case of the prosecution that on the night of the said day, P.W.2 was forcibly raped by the revision petitioner and that on the following day, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were also subjected to the same kind of offence by the petitioner. But however, the fourth girl had escaped. After three days, these four girls P.Ws.2 to 5, were sent to Gudiyatham by bus. On the fourth day, on reaching their village, the girls have informed their relatives as to what had happened to them. P.W.1, father of P.W.2,. reported the matter to Gudiyatham Taluk Police Station at about 2 p.m. on 26. 1986. His complaint was registered as Gudiyatham Taluk Police Station Crime Number 130 of 1986 against the petitioner and investigation started. P.W.17, prepared the express reports and printed F.I.R. and sent them to Court and superior officers. He sent P.W.2 to P.W.5 for medical examination. reported the matter to Gudiyatham Taluk Police Station at about 2 p.m. on 26. 1986. His complaint was registered as Gudiyatham Taluk Police Station Crime Number 130 of 1986 against the petitioner and investigation started. P.W.17, prepared the express reports and printed F.I.R. and sent them to Court and superior officers. He sent P.W.2 to P.W.5 for medical examination. P.W.15, Dr.Prakasam, attached to the Government Hospital, Gudiyatham referred P.W.2 to P.W.5 to be examined by a lady doctor. P.W.2 to P.W.5 were examined by a lady doctor by name Ruthrabai,but however, she was neither cited as a witness nor examined before the trial court. What is the strange thing to ‘be noticed is that the lady doctor who examined the victim girls had not even given any certificate with regard to her examination of the above victim girls. 3. P.W.17 took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence and examined the witnesses there. On 26. 1986 at Marina Beach near Kan-nagi Statue, he arrested the petitioner. On the information furnished by the petitioner, he visited the house where the victim girls had stayed and prepared rough sketch Ex.P-13. He recovered M.Os.l to 15 under mahazar Ex.P-4. He also recovered the clothes of the petitioner M.Os.19 to 22, under Form 91 Ex.P-14. He also recovered the petty coats of the victim girls. Ex.P-15 is the express report sent by him to court. P.W.18 took up further investigation since P.W.17 was transferred. P.W.18 examined further witnesses, completed the investigation and laid final report against the petitioner for the offences under Secs.366 and 376, I.P.C. P.W.16, Dr.Nagarajan attached to the Government Hospital, Gudiyatham, has examined the petitioner on 26. 1986 and has given the certificate about the potency of the petitioner and preserved the semen from him for chemical analysis. Ex.P-12 is the certificate issued by him. 4. When the petitioner was examined under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the trial court, with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he had denied his complicity in the crime, but however, did not choose the examine witnesses on his behalf. 5. Ex.P-12 is the certificate issued by him. 4. When the petitioner was examined under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the trial court, with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he had denied his complicity in the crime, but however, did not choose the examine witnesses on his behalf. 5. On assessment of the entire oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution and the plea taken on behalf of the petitioner, the learned trial Judge, found the petitioner not guilty for the offence under Sec.366, I.P.C. but however, found him guilty for the offence under Sec.376, I.P.C. (one count) for having committed rape of P.W.2 alone and that the offence against the other witnesses had not been established by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. The petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.146 of 1988 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Arcot at Vellore. The learned Sessions Judge on reassessing the entire oral and documentary evidence and the rival contentions, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by the trial Judge. Aggrieved, petitioner has come up with this revision. .6. Mr.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while urging the grounds raised in this revision, drew my attention to the fact that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R., namely, for about 4 days and that the relevant explanation for such delay had not been given by the prosecution by means of even an iota of evidence in spite of the fact that 18 witnesses were examined, which alone cuts the very root of the prosecution case. The learned counsel contended secondly, that there was no acceptable legal evidence made available in this case, to sustain any conviction against the petitioner for an offence under Sec.376, I.P.C. and that the allegations regarding the alleged rape of three girls, remain in the case diary of the police alone and had not been substantiated with any piece of acceptable evidence as contemplated by law and thirdly, that the medical evidence which is a vital and corroborative piece of evidence expected to substantiate the prosecution case is totally lacking and absent, so much so, in this backdrop, however, the finding of both the courts below concurrently is manifestly an error of law and as such, cannot be sustained in any court of law even for a minute. Besides the above main contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice so many other points. In this regard, I have heard Mr.G.Kumaravel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 7. A careful perusal of the recorded evidence and documents makes it clear, that only on the fourth day of the alleged occurrence, P.W.1, the father of P.W.2, set the law in motion by giving complaint Ex.P-1, pertaining to the offences involved in this case. But however, on the same day, it appears that not only P.W.2, but also the other girls P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5, were claimed to have been examined by one lady Doctor by name Ruthrabai, attached to the Government Hospital, Gudiyatham. Before that, it is seen, that P.W.15, Dr.Prakasam, a male Doctor has referred P.W.2 to P.W.5 for the medical examination by a lady doctor. It is rather strange and most surprising to note that the lady doctor who had caused the extensive examination of the victim girls had not given any certificate with regard to her examination, added to which, she was not cited as a witnesses nor even examined at the trial court but it appears from the records that she was summoned, yet, before giving evidence, her examination was dispensed with by the prosecution for the obvious reasons know to it. P.W.15 never examined these victim girls. Therefore, his evidence, whatever it may be with reference to the certificates given by him, may not render an assistance or help to the prosecution. P.W.15 never examined these victim girls. Therefore, his evidence, whatever it may be with reference to the certificates given by him, may not render an assistance or help to the prosecution. To this extent, I am fully satisfied to hold, that the prosecution is totally bereft of any medical evidence either for support or corroboration to the claim made by the victim girls namely, P. Ws.2 to 5. 8. A mere glance of the oral testimony of the investigation staff, P.Ws.2 to 5 and P.W.1, the author of Ex.P-1 reveals that they did not project a single word of explanation for the delay that had occasioned setting the law in motion by giving Ex.P-1. I am fully conscious of the fact that in a case of rape and especially under the circumstances the victim girls were threatened by the real offender and for the communication gap to their respective parents it is quite nature for a delay being happened. But however, that does not mean that the case of the prosecution without the said delay being explained, has to be accepted. This aspect of the accepted principle of law has not been made available in this case. Therefore, having perused the case records and the oral testimony, I am fully satisfied to hold that the inordinate delay of four days in setting the law in motion, in the instant case, cuts the very root of the prosecution case and as such, it has to be thrown to the debris. 9. Added to that, the observation of the courts below regarding the detection of a drop of semen found in the petty coat of P.W.2, may probabilise the offence of the petitioner under Scc.376, I.P.C, his intention to the criminal act. But however, it is painful to note that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court were inclined to accept this evidence, which to my mind, is a gross abuse of the process of court and cannot be sustained for a single minute. It is not known as to who had taken that semen, under what circumstances, under what authentication and whose presence, are all things that remain a mystery to be spoken clearly by the prosecution before a court of law. It is not known as to who had taken that semen, under what circumstances, under what authentication and whose presence, are all things that remain a mystery to be spoken clearly by the prosecution before a court of law. One cannot forget the fact that these four girls, may be grownup girls, accompanied the petitioner, not to a particular place but to a distant place at Madras with the craziness of becoming actresses in the cinema and from their evidence it is identified that all went to Erukkancheri village and out of their joint effort procured a house from P.W.12, purchased the groceries, prepared food, took meals and resided there for about three days and now expressed their grouse or grievance against the petitioner. Leaving all the above said aspects, the parents of the four girls did not evidence any interest in searching the girls during the said period nor had launched any complaint about the missing of their girls. This aspect of the serious doubt inherent in the prosecution is very vital and it is very difficult upon the basis of which, the accused/petitioner is mulcted with any criminal liability. .10. with regard to the investigation claimed to have been done by the police, it is my duty to point out their callousness, lethargic inaction shown towards an offence triable by a Court of sessions, viz., an offence punishable under Secs.366 and 376, I.P.C. pertaining to four grown-up girls belonging to a village and the manner in which the prosecution had showed their performance to the last cadre. To illustrate the same, I have to point out that the investigating officer had not even cited the lady Doctor by name Ruthrabai, as one of the prosecution witnesses to prove the existing physical anatomy of the four victim girls. Not only that, he had failed to obtain a certificate from that lady Doctor. Perhaps that was the reason why, though she was summoned during trial,her examination was dispensed with by the prosecution. In a case of this nature, it is the common knowledge as to what would be the result if the lady Doctor had failed to give certificate regarding the examination of the victim girls. Perhaps that was the reason why, though she was summoned during trial,her examination was dispensed with by the prosecution. In a case of this nature, it is the common knowledge as to what would be the result if the lady Doctor had failed to give certificate regarding the examination of the victim girls. Therefore, on looking all the aspects, it is patently clear, that the police have sided with the accused and facilitated him indirectly, perhaps under the legal pretext to get him acquitted from the clutches of law. This is yet another case, in which a criminal who had com-mitted a serious sexual assault on the virgin of four grown-up unmarried girls escapes liability because of the inaction of the Police. This Court in very many cases had held that the police arc not discharging their duties as required by law and it is for the authorities concerned, to take necessary steps to get it rectified. Otherwise, with great strain, I have to state again, that there cannot be any safety for any citizen in the Society to lead a peaceful life. Constitutional duty cast upon the law and order enforcing authority, cannot be allowed to be abro-gated or made to be pretended as performed in the name of filing a formal case in a court of law. In this regard, enough for me, at this stage, to observe that the Investigating Officers in this case deserve a stern action to be taken for their dereliction of legal duty. 11. The various findings given by the lower appellate court as well as the trial court are not to be accepted in the sense, that the conclusion and finding given by both courts below, with great constrain 11 may say that the same are not based on the acceptable, convincing or legal evidence but are on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The opinion of my reasonings above discussed, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been totally overlooked by the courts below, which, in my firm view, is an error of law and also a serious prejudice which had resulted in miscarriage of justice. The opinion of my reasonings above discussed, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been totally overlooked by the courts below, which, in my firm view, is an error of law and also a serious prejudice which had resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is the well settled principle of law that in a given criminal case, the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion or conjecture, however strong it may be, but can be convicted only on the basis of the acceptable, convincing, cogent and legal evidence. As such, I am satisfied to hold, that the prosecution Has virtually failed to establish the guilt and complicity of the accused and the judgments of the lower appellate court and the trial court are vitiated with every illegality and impropriety as well as error of law and cannot be sustained in law for a minute in any court of law. Since the conviction against the accused had been recorded inspite of all the above serious errors disregarding the accepted legal canons, I am constrained to hold that the impugned judgments can be set aside immediately. 12. In the result, the revision succeeds and accordingly it is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner are set aside.