V. Dutta Gyani, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd December, 1991 delivered by learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No.17 (B)/91,thereby holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2.000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a year. 2. Prosecution case stated in brief was that on 3rd September, 1986 Smti Monebala PW 5, her cousin Smti Gafuli PW 2, mother Sonari PW 7 and PW 6 Smti Sorai Boro accompanied by two other girls Lalita and Purnima had gone to Bogidhara to work in a paddy field. When they were returning home after the day's work while passing beside a jute field Ohad Ali and Md. Abduruk Ali residents of Bogidhara attacked them with weapons and committed rape on Gafuli and Monebala. 3. As it was getting late and the girls had not returned from the field naturally the younger brother Niranjan Boro went to Bogidhara, he met them at the hmse of one of their relation Khargeswar Boro. His mother Sonari PW 7 apprised him that the girls were raped, the culprits were recognised. PW 3 thereafter lodged the first information report Ext. 1 at Sorbhog Police Station. A case under section 376 IPC read with section 341/323/324 and 34 IPC was registered and taken under investigation by PW 9. The victims were sent for medical examination to Sorbhog State Dispensary where they were examined by PW 1 Dr. Thakur.Ojha. According to him Gafuli aged about 15 years and Monebala aged about 17/18 years and were subjected to rape. He also found swelling with mark of cccbymosis on the body of Purnima and Sorai. No mark of injury was found on PW 7 Sonari Boro. 4. It was on 5.9.86 that the Investigating Officer PW 9 as claimed by him proceeded to the place of occurrence and found that public was holding a trial of accused appellant Nurut Zamal in the courtyard of the house of one Azibur (nor, examined by prosecution). The victim girls were also present. They pointed out the accused who was arrested by PW 9. 5. On next day i e. on 6.9.86, the accused was forwarded to the Court for recording of his confessional statement as per application Ext VIII. The victim girls were also present. They pointed out the accused who was arrested by PW 9. 5. On next day i e. on 6.9.86, the accused was forwarded to the Court for recording of his confessional statement as per application Ext VIII. A prayer was also made for holding test identification parade by the applica­tion Ext. 10. Confessional statement of the accused Ext. 2 was recorded by Magistrate First Class, Barpeta 9.9.86 and a test identification parade was also held at the jail where victims are said to have identified the accused. On completion of investigation the accused was charged and tried for the above offences and the trial Court as already noted above, found him guilty. Hence this appeal. 6. As the appellant had no legal aid or advice, Mr. AK Maheswari was appointed as Amicus Curiae to defend the appellant. Accordingly he has appeared and argued for the appellant, challenging the conviction. Learned counsel for the State maintained that the conviction as recorded by the trial Court is proper and does not call for interference. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the convic­tion on the following grounds : (1) that the prosecution has made complete sweeps and shifting from its earliest version as contained in the FIR, Ext. 1 (2) the investigation has been highly tainted and partisan, (3) test identification parade held 13 days after the arrest of the accused, was nothing but sort of a farce, (4) trial Court has gone palpably wrong in accepting the distorted, prosecution story which is highly unnatural and unreliable. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, however, submitted that even if the accuseds as named in the FIR have been let off yet appellant's conviction is proper and does not call for interference. 9. It is an unusual case where the prosecution made a convenient departure its earliest version as contained in FIR. Two accuseds (1) Ohab AH and (2) Md. Abduruk have been specifically named in the FIR, Ext. 1, by the informant Niranjan Boro, PW 3. Leaving them aside, a third person the appellant is picked up for trial. What is more surprising is the acceptance of this distorted prosecution case by the learned trial Judge. 10. Two accuseds (1) Ohab AH and (2) Md. Abduruk have been specifically named in the FIR, Ext. 1, by the informant Niranjan Boro, PW 3. Leaving them aside, a third person the appellant is picked up for trial. What is more surprising is the acceptance of this distorted prosecution case by the learned trial Judge. 10. It was contended before the trial Court that since accused-appe­llant's name was not to be found in the FIR, which was lodged after twenty four hours casting a serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story which could not be accepted without a grain of salt. 11. Let it be made clear that so far the delay in lodging the FIR in such matters like rape is concerned, it stands well explained; people do not imm­ediately rush to police. They have their own considerations with regard to social prestige, the stigma attributed to the victim, her future matrimonial prospects if unmarried, non-availability of responsible male members of the family, are all factors which result the delay in lodging of report. The trial Court has rightly dealt with this delay. 12 It is not a case of mere non-mention of name of the accused app­ellant in the FIR. Two other persons are specifically named as accused in the FIR, Ext 1. The learned Judge has failed to see how these two accuseds as named in the FIR have been dropped by sheer ingenuity of the IO, PW 9. 13. He put two questions, to the informant PW 3. They are also secon­ded in the FIR Ext. 1. These questions are reproduced below : "Question : From whom have you came to know the names of the two accused mentioned in the ejahar ? Answer : Nur Islam, the eldest son of Hanif Mahajan of Bogidhara village told me that those two accused might be the ones involved in it. Because, they are said to have been in record for raping girls at other places previously also. Question : Did your mother, sister, daughter or the other three girls of the village tell the names of the accused ? Answer : They did not tell the name of any accused. But, they told that 'Mia' person was involved and that they would be able to recognise at sight." 14. Question : Did your mother, sister, daughter or the other three girls of the village tell the names of the accused ? Answer : They did not tell the name of any accused. But, they told that 'Mia' person was involved and that they would be able to recognise at sight." 14. Whether these questions and answers form part of the FIR, so as to be admissible in evidence ? Whether it was open to the IO at that stage of recording FIR to put such questions. Does the law permit such a course ? The learned trial Judge does not address himself to these questions. 15. Even if one goes by these questions and their answers as provided by the informant and assuming for the sake of argument that the IO could have legally put these questions to the informant, still the learned Judge should have seen it that Nurul Islam who has been named by the informant, as nis source of information so far as the two accuseds named in the FIR are concerned, has not been produced by the prosecution as a witness. There is mot a whisper in the evidence of IO, PW" 9, that he, even approached said Nurul Islam, for ascertainment of names of accused as disclosed by the informant PW 3. The learned trial Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter. Even going by his own version, the least in the circumstances of the case, that was expected of the IO,PW 9 was to contact Nurul Islam and verify the fact if he had disclosed the names of the two accused, as given out in FIR Ext. 1 by the informant PW 3. 16. Coming to the legal question relating to FIR, a careful and accurate recording of the FIR has always been considered highly important by the Courts. In the instant case it was a written report submitted by the infor­mant, which clearly disclosed commission of a cognizable offence. On the basis of the report Ext. 1, laid before the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, he had no option but to register the case on the basis of the report and to investigate the same in accordance with law, as has been held and pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & others, AIR 1992 SC 604 . 17. 1, laid before the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, he had no option but to register the case on the basis of the report and to investigate the same in accordance with law, as has been held and pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & others, AIR 1992 SC 604 . 17. The learned trial Judge has missed the real point while dealing with the object of an FIR with reference to the case of Hasib vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 283 . Even from the stand point of investigating agency, the object being to obtain information about criminal activity with a view to take suitable steps to trace and bring to book the guilty. The learned Judge should have addressed himself to the question what steps were taken by the investi­gating agency to trace and bring to book the guilty ones as named in the FIR. As already discussed above, no efforts were made by the investigating agency to trace the guilty, as named in the FIR Ext. 1. The IO has failed in his duty and trial Court has omitted to consider the impact of such failure on his part. 18. Coming to the questions put by the IO and the answers given by the informant, the mere fact that they are recorded on the same sheet, do not make them an integral part of the FIR. It is only the information as laid by PW3 before the Station Officer, which is admissible under section 154 CrPC and not the subsequent questioning of the informant by him, as it would be clearly hit by section 162 CrPC. 19. The instructions contained in the Assam Police Manual in this regard are worth noting. "118. Supplementary information - Procedure of recording-As soon as the procedure described in the preceding rule has been carried out, the first information report is complete, and no addition may be made in any circumstances. If the informant subsequently volunteers further infor­mation this must be recorded in the case diary as information obtained during investigation. It may on no account be recorded as a "supplemen­tary first information report'' for annexure to the original." 20. Coming to the test identification parade held in jail on 30.9.86, the accused was arrested on 5.9.86. Admittedly there was delay in holding the test identification parade. It may on no account be recorded as a "supplemen­tary first information report'' for annexure to the original." 20. Coming to the test identification parade held in jail on 30.9.86, the accused was arrested on 5.9.86. Admittedly there was delay in holding the test identification parade. The incident is dated 3.9.86 and the FIR Ext. 1 was lodged next day on 4.9.86. The accused was taken into custody on 5.9.86 when PW 9, the 10 came to have visited the place of occurrence Pamugaon and Bogidbara where a public trial of the accused was being held in the Court yard of one Ajibur of Bogidhara and where the victim girls and the complainant were also present. In fact as admitted by IO in his evidence he arrested the accused only on the shown by them. The learned trial Judge has overlooked this aspect of the matter while dealing with the evidence relating to test identification. The learned trial Judge confines himself to the delay part of holding test identification, parade but does not consider the opportunity that the witnesses had to seen the accused after commission of offence and its impact. Test identification parade assumes important particularly if held within a reasonable time after the commission of the offence and loses its significance when there is enormous delay in holding it. In the instant case, it has not been explained simply because the date fixed by the Magistrate was 30th. Even the application for holding test identification parade itself was made also after a fortnight of the incident. In such situation as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girja Shankar Misra vs. State of UP, AIR 1993 SC 3384, the test identification loses its significance. A lots of authorities were submitted to him by the defence counsel as mooted in paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment, AIR 1973 SC 337 , 1991 Crl LJ 1833, 1991 Crl LJ 2703; 1988 Crl LJ 780 relating to test identification and the delay caused in its holding-the opportunity of seeing the accused. With reference to the authority cited and the contentions advanced, the learned trial Judge has made a note at the end of paragraph 27 that the contentions would be considered presently. But going through the subsequent paragraphs nowhere the learned Judge appears to have considered the contentions as supported by the authorities. With reference to the authority cited and the contentions advanced, the learned trial Judge has made a note at the end of paragraph 27 that the contentions would be considered presently. But going through the subsequent paragraphs nowhere the learned Judge appears to have considered the contentions as supported by the authorities. If the witnesses had already seen and pointed to the accused, resulting in his arrest, then why this farce of holding a test identification parade after 25 days. This delay is sought to be explained by showing that it was the Magistrate who fixed the date. But when the Magistrate was approached for holding test identification parade, it was 13 days after the arrest of the accused as deposed to by the IO, PW 9 and has no explanation to offer for delay. The learned trial Judge does not at all consider this aspect of the matter that test identification parade was nothing but sort of farce in the face of the fact that the witnesses had already been shown the accused before the holding of test identification parade. The appellant's trial by public as testified by PW 9 is not even hinted by any other witnesses. There is no reference of any such public trial by any other witnesses including the victims. The IO of course has referred to it having taken the accused in custody and went to the place of the occurrence. It is not unusual that it does attract a crowd in a small village. If it is true as claimed by the IO, PW 9 that the accused was arrested on being pointed out by the victims, what was the necessity of repeating the exercise of test identification parade, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant and to our mind rightly so. The learned trial Judge has not adverted to this aspect of the matter. Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the medical evidence as according to him the real culprits as named in the FIR have been very conveniently let off and the accused appell­ant have been falsely implicated in the case. The learned trial Judge has not adverted to this aspect of the matter. Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the medical evidence as according to him the real culprits as named in the FIR have been very conveniently let off and the accused appell­ant have been falsely implicated in the case. Surprisingly enough the learned Judge going by the fact that the accused appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC had not stated that he had been falsely implicated, have outrightly rejected the case of false implication ignoring the probabili­ties of the case and the tainted and partisan nature of investigation, as if the accused has pleaded guilty to the charge. In answer to question No. 28, the accused in his own polited and humble way denied the charges by saying "I did not do these things". What more is required ? It is a cardinal rule that if a statement made under section 313 CrPC is sought to be used it must be read as a whole. There are series of decisions on the point (See Earnail Singh & another vs. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 904 , Palvinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354 . It is not open to the Court to dissect the state­ment and to pick up a part of the statement which may be incriminating. The statement has to be read as a whole. In the instant case it is not a state­ment made by the accused under section 313 CrPC but an omission on his part to take a plea that he was falsely implicated. The examination of an accused under section 313 CrPC is quite different from taking the plea of the accused which is done at an earlier stage of the proceeding. In any case it affords no ground for an adverse inference against the appellant that if he had failed to state that he had been falsely implicated, it is for the Court to see on the basis of evidence adduced, even in absence of such a plea, that his complicity in the offence charged is duly established and proved by the prosecution. 21. It was argued by the learned counsel that the trial Court was wrong in holding that the accused committed rape on two girls at the same hour and place. 21. It was argued by the learned counsel that the trial Court was wrong in holding that the accused committed rape on two girls at the same hour and place. According to him the prosecution case is extremely unnatural and improbable but the learned Judge of the trial Court has sought to support by quoting a coupled from Shakespeare : "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Literary flair, apart the hard realities of life, can not be ignored, more so in such a case. The charge as framed reads as follows : "That you on or about the September 3, 1986 about 6.00 in the evening at the border of Damugaon and Bogidhara committed rape on Monebala Boro, daughter of Surya Kanta Boro and Gafuli Boro, daugh­ter of Jolo Ram Boro, two minor girls." 22. The other reason assigned to by the learned Judge is as if the quotat­ion from Shakespeare is not enough. The learned Judge referring to the evidence of Gafuli has noted that intercourse with her did not last long. Gafuli was the accused's climax and the next girl Jvlonebala was his culmination. One can only refer to the evidence of Gafuli PW 2 and wonder as to wherefrom does the learned Judge of the trial Court inferred. She has categorically stated 'Having done the intercourse on me, he ran after Mone, I did not see what he did with her..." In absence of any statement on her part inference drawn by the learned Judge is nothing but plight of his imagination. The medical evidence shows that her hymen was raptured. The Doctor has further suggested that the lady was exposed to an act of rape in way of violance. The learned trial Judge has omitted to consider the earliest version as contained in the FIR, that two accused as named therein committed rape on two girls, namely, Gafuli and Monebala. This convenient departure from the earliest version should have been noticed by the trial Court. Prosecution cannot be allowed to shift its ground from unnatural, inconsistent and improbable case as has been put forth. Although there is a confession made by the accused appellant, even then the trial Court has not considered the same, nor it has pressed into service in this appeal. 23. Prosecution cannot be allowed to shift its ground from unnatural, inconsistent and improbable case as has been put forth. Although there is a confession made by the accused appellant, even then the trial Court has not considered the same, nor it has pressed into service in this appeal. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the appellant's conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. This appeal stands allowed. The accused appellant be set at liberty forthwith. Fine, if already paid, be refunded to the appellant.