JUDGMENT 1. 1. Balram and Smt. Anchi have preferred this appeal against their conviction Under section 376 Indian Penal Code and 376/34 Indian Penal Code and sentence of SI for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar vide Judgment dated 1.12.1994. 2. The case for the prosecution is that on 1.5.1994 Panna Ram and his daughter Rosni lodged a report that some days back, Bal Ram who is father-in-law of Rosni committed rape on Rosni. It was further stated in the FIR that Anchi who is mother-in-law of Rosni assisted accused Balram in committing rape. In the FIR it was also stated that accused Balram had caught hold of the hand of Rosni in day time. It was prayed that the accused should be convicted and the dowry given in the marriage of Rosni should be returned to Panna Ram. On this report a case under section 376 IPC was registered. The police got the examination of Rosni done by Medical Officer, Rawatsar, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused. After the completion of the investigation, a challan was submitted. The trial-Judge framed a charge Under section 376 Indian Penal Code against accused Balram and a charge Under section 376/34 Idian Penal Code with alternative charge Under Section 376/109 against Anchi was framed. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW 1 Rosni, PW 2 Kalawati, PW 3 Panna Ram, PW 4 Krishna, PW 5 Norang and PW 6 Sadhu Singh. Out of them, FW 1 Rosni is prosecutrix and PW 2 Kalawati is her mother to whom Rosni related the incident. PW 3 is father of Rosni was lodged the First Information Report. PW 4 Krishna, examined to prove the incident of day time, has turned hostile. PW 5 Norang was motbir of the recovery memo and he has also turned hostile. PW 6 Sadhu Singh is the Investigating Officer. Accused Balram in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. stated that he had told his daughter-in-law to prepare tea and when he went to the `Kotha' to take tea, he saw a man running from that Kotha and when he asked about him to his daughter-in-law, she did not reply. PW 6 Sadhu Singh is the Investigating Officer. Accused Balram in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. stated that he had told his daughter-in-law to prepare tea and when he went to the `Kotha' to take tea, he saw a man running from that Kotha and when he asked about him to his daughter-in-law, she did not reply. He has stated that after 15 days father of Rosni had gone there to take Rosni and thereafter he again came with the Panchayat and told that his son was not fit for his daughter and therefore, he should return the dowry and also pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and when he could not fulfil his demand, this false case has been brought against him. Accused Anchi in her statement has also stated that her daughter-in-law is of bad character and when she objected to it, a false case has been made. Accused examined Kalu Ram (husband of Rosni) and Mani Ram in defence. The learned trial Judge after hearing the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 3. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent have been heard. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the learned trial Judge has committed grave error in convicting the appellants in this case in which the FIR was lodged after considerable delay and there is no corroboration of the statement of Rosni whatsoever. He has submitted that the prosecution case that Balram committed rape on his daughter-in-law in the presence of his wife and with her help is highly improbable as no lady would permit her husband to have extra marital sexual relations with other lady. He has further submitted that there is no corroboration even of the incident which is said to have taken place in day time. It has been pointed out that the learned trial Judge has relied upon the authorities of the Supreme Court without considering the peculiar facts of this case. It was contended that on this admission of Rosni that before she entered into the witness box she was tutored, her whole of the statement becomes inadmissible. It has been pointed out that the learned trial Judge has relied upon the authorities of the Supreme Court without considering the peculiar facts of this case. It was contended that on this admission of Rosni that before she entered into the witness box she was tutored, her whole of the statement becomes inadmissible. His submissions is that the defence version, that Rosni was not of good character and as her husband Kalu could not satisfy sexually Rosni she wanted to get rid of him and her father has reported this false case after concocting a story in order to get back the property given in dowry and Rs. 50,000/-, should be believed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Singhvi has contended that the learned trial Judge has rightly held both the accused guilty and their conviction should be maintained. 6. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. The peculiar facts of this case are that the prosecutrix is the daughter-in-law and the accused are father-in-law and mother-in-law. Since the matter was reported many days after the alleged occurrence, the medical report Ex. P/10 is not of any significance. 7. The sole point for consideration is as to whether reliance can be placed on the testimony of Rosni. Her statement is to this effect that she was made to sleep in the courtyard on a cot and thereafter her mother-in-law forcibly took her in the room and there her mother-in-law and she slept on a cot and at about mid night her father-in-law went in the room, shut the door and he fell on both of them and when she noticed her father-in-law, she put her legs in such a position as to avoid sexual assault but accused Balram made the legs wide and Anchi caught hold of her both the hands and put one hand on her mouth and thereafter Balram opened the string of her Salwar, removed his half pant and committed sexual intercourse on her. Her further statement is that she started weeping and after about half an hour Balram again came and committed sexual intercourse with her. She has deposed that her mother-in-law and father-in-law told in the morning that she should not tell about the incident to anyone otherwise she would face consequences. Her further statement is that she started weeping and after about half an hour Balram again came and committed sexual intercourse with her. She has deposed that her mother-in-law and father-in-law told in the morning that she should not tell about the incident to anyone otherwise she would face consequences. She has stated that she had washed the clothes which she was wearing at the time of occurrence as they were stained and put them in the box. Her father's statement is that after about 4 days her father went to take her to his house and she went away with him and that she related the incident after 4-5 days when her mother asked her about the cause of her weeping. PW 2 Kalawati has deposed that her daughter after coming from her husband's house continued to weep for two-three days and when she asked her as to what was the problem, she related the incident telling that when in the court-yard she was sleeping alongwith her husband Kalu, her mother-in-law sent Kalu forcibly and took her away in the room and there her father-in-law committed sexual intercourse with her and her mother-in-law kept her holding and that after half an hour again her father-in-law came and committed rape on her. 8. The first question that arises for consideration is as to when the alleged incident took place. In the FIR Ex. P/1 it was stated that the occurrence had taken place before a week. It was also stated therein that Rosni had informed her parents about the incident 6-7 days after she came to their village Thus, according to the averments in the FIR which was lodged on 1.5.1994, the incident took place on or about 24.4.1994. However, if we read the statement of Rosni PW 1, it transpires that Rosni narrated the incident to her mother three days after she reached Tibi and that her father had gone to Kanwani 4 days after the alleged occurrence. She has admitted in cross-examination that when her police statement Ex. D/1 was recorded, the incident had become 15 days old. The police statement of Rosni was recorded on 1.5.1994. She has admitted in cross-examination that when her police statement Ex. D/1 was recorded, the incident had become 15 days old. The police statement of Rosni was recorded on 1.5.1994. Thus, according to this part of the statement of Rosni, the incident took place somewhere in the middle of April.In this connection, Panna Ram (PW 3) has deposed that he had gone to the Police Station to report the matter 20 days after he brought Rosni to Tibi. He has also deposed that after her wife informed him about the incident, he did not go to the police for about 4 days. It has come in the statement of Kalawati that after Rosni informed her about the incident, they thought over the matter for 2-4 days. A combined reading of these statements go to show that Rosni did not tell her mother about the incident for about 15 days at Tibi and even after the parents came to know about the incident, they did not go to the Police Station for 4-5 days. In these circumstances, the version that the incident had taken place on or about 24th April can hardly be believed. The non-reporting of such a serious matter to the police for about 20 days by Panna Ram is certainly fatal in this case. Of course it might not be possible for Rosni to have lodged a report for 4 days when she was in her husband's house, however, when she had reached Tibi she was free from fear and she could very well tell the incident to her mother and the matter could have reported at the earliest. The explanation that the parents thought over the matter for 4-5 days as to whether they should lodge a report can hardly be believed. It is not a case where Rosni was unmarried girl and there could be any apprehension that she would not be married if the incident is known by many persons or that the prestige of her parents family will be lowered down. It was a case where the accused were none else than the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Rosni. In view of this incident there could not be any chance for Rosni to continue in her husband's house and, therefore, there was no occasion for pondering over the matter for 4-5 days. Obviously. It was a case where the accused were none else than the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Rosni. In view of this incident there could not be any chance for Rosni to continue in her husband's house and, therefore, there was no occasion for pondering over the matter for 4-5 days. Obviously. the parents of Rosni could not have any interest in the prestige or honour of the family of the accused. Therefore, the inordinate delay caused in lodging FIR in this case and not satisfactorily explained, is fatal to the prosecution. 9. The learned trial Judge has referred to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhogini Bhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753 : 1983 Cr.L.R. (SC) 396 . That was a case where rape was committed on a girl of 10-12 years by a friend of her father. There was delay of some days in lodging the First Information Report. The Hon'ble Apex Court pointing out the Indian conditions observed that there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence. It has been further observed as follows:- "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." In the instant case, Rosni was a married woman. She had ample opportunity to tell her parents about the incident after she reached Tibi. However, she chose to keep quiet for 4 days and even after she disclosed the incident to her mother, the parents did not care to lodge the report for about 15 days. It is not such a case where Rosni or her parents could think that by making a report Rosni was likely to lose love and respect of her husband or near relatives in her matrimonial home and happiness would be shattered as the allegations were against the in-laws themselves. Thus, there was no question of pondering over the matter before making a report. Obviously, after this incident Rosni could not be interested in the honour of her husband's family. Thus, there was no question of pondering over the matter before making a report. Obviously, after this incident Rosni could not be interested in the honour of her husband's family. It may also be noticed that by reporting this incident against father-in-law and mother-in-law there could not be social stigma on the family name and family honour of the parents of Rosni and, therefore, Rosni or her parents could not have any inclination to avoid giving publicity to the incident. It is, therefore, clear that in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the delay in lodging the FIR is certainly fatal to the prosecution case. 9-A. The learned trial Judge has also referred to the case of Harpat Singh & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1981 SCC (Cri.) 208 . In that case there was delay of 10 days in lodging the FIR. It was not considered fatal in view of the circumstances that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age and she had related the details of the occurrence to her brother and father without delay, after she was rescued. In our case, the matter was not reported even to the parents for 4-5 days when Rosni was free from the pressure of her-in-laws. 10. It is significant to point out that according to Rosni when she went to the Police Station and narrated the incident to the SHO, he told that she should go and get a written report and thereafter she went to the market to get a report written. If this part of the statement of Rosni is believed, it will have to be held that the FIR Ex. P/1 is not the first version given to the police. We do not know as to what was stated by Rosni or her father to the police orally. It is not a case where the police was only intimated that an offence was committed. According to Rosni she had narrated the whole story to SHO. In these circumstances, the oral report given by Rosni was the first information report. 11. Apart from this, the alleged incident is highly improbable. It cannot be believed in the ordinary course of human conduct and experience that a lady would allow her husband to have intercourse with other lady much less by actively helping him in his doings. In these circumstances, the oral report given by Rosni was the first information report. 11. Apart from this, the alleged incident is highly improbable. It cannot be believed in the ordinary course of human conduct and experience that a lady would allow her husband to have intercourse with other lady much less by actively helping him in his doings. In the Indian society no lady can think of tolerating sexual relations of her husband with other lady; more so, where the other lady is the daughter-in-law in which case Balram would have an opportunity of sexual intercourse all the times. It is not at all believable that Anchi would become party to such a nasty act of her husband. Thus, the story that Balram committed rape on Rosni with the help of his wife Anchi is so improbable that it can hardly be believed. 12. It has come in the statement of Rosni that her grand mother-in-law also lived in the house. It may be that her mother-in-law was involved in the incident, Rosni could very well tell about the incident to her grand mother-in-law who was an elderly lady and atleast could not be a party to such an immoral act. Her not reporting the matter to the elderly lady goes to show that as a matter of fact no such incident had taken place. 13. It has also come in the statement of Rosni that when accused Balram had committed rape on her, her dress was smeared with semen, which she had washed and put in her box. Rosni understood that what was done by the two accused was bad and illegal act, it is not understood why Rosni hastened to wash the dress. She could very well preserve it in the same condition to show it to her parents and to the police. This circumstance further goes to show that whatever she has deposed is not correct. 14. Rosni has deposed that when the police had seen the site of field where the day time incident had taken place, there were broken bangles which she was wearing at the time of incident and the police had recovered them. However, the Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he had not recovered any bangles. It is, thus, clear that for Rosni there is not much importance of oath and she can tell whatever she likes. However, the Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he had not recovered any bangles. It is, thus, clear that for Rosni there is not much importance of oath and she can tell whatever she likes. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of such a witness. 15. It is also significant to point out that according to Rosni accused Balram had committed sexual intercourse twice on the night of occurrence. However, the fact that the accused had done sexual intercourse twice was not stated in the FIR Ex. P/1. This fact further goes to show that Rosni has no sanctity for oath and she states whatever suits her. 16. Coming to the incident which is said to have taken place at day time, the prosecution case is that Rosni was seen running without `Chunni' from the field to her house and she had met one Krishna who gave her a `Chadar' to cover herself. The prosecution has examined Mst. Krishna (PW 4). She has denied to have seen Rosni weeping or going towards her house or to have given any `Chadar' to her. She has been declared hostile. There is nothing in her cross-examination to disbelieve her. No other person has been examined to support this version of the prosecution that Rosni was seen without wearing `Chunni' and that she was weeping while going to her house from the field. We have already seen that no broken bangles were recovered from the field by Sadhu Singh, SHO. These circumstances clearly falsify the statement of Rosni regarding the day time incident. 17. It is manifest that the statement of Rosni for the day time incident or the incident of night regarding sexual intercourse, does not inspire confidence. It appears that she has made false allegations against the accused because she did not want to continue the married life with Kalu as Kalu was sexually weak. It may be noted that Rosni had stated in her statement Ex. D/1 that her husband was of her age but weak in health. Panna Ram has clearly stated that Rosni is more stout than Kalu. The defence version is that Rosni was having illicit relations with someone else and when some person was seen in the `Kotha' situate in the field, accused Balram asked her as to who he was and when the incident became known, this false story was concocted. Panna Ram has clearly stated that Rosni is more stout than Kalu. The defence version is that Rosni was having illicit relations with someone else and when some person was seen in the `Kotha' situate in the field, accused Balram asked her as to who he was and when the incident became known, this false story was concocted. Ofcourse there is no evidence on record regarding this version, however, when the prosecution story has not been found believable the defence version cannot be brushed aside. 18. The learned trial Judge has also placed reliance on the case of Balwant Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab . That was a case of unmarried girl and there was corroboration in the form of medical evidence. The defence version that father implicated the accused falsely because of enmity was not accepted. In the instant case it is not the case for the accused that because of enmity they have been implicated. The case for the accused is that Rosni was not of good character and when a man was seen coming out of `Kotha' doubts were raised by accused Balram and when the matter gained currency Rosni concocted this false story after going to her parents house. We have seen that there was delay of about 20 days in reporting the matter and also that the story is highly improbable. 19. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence and material on record, I am of opinion that the learned trial Judge has committed error in placing reliance on the testimony of Rosni. 20. For the reasons stated above, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and has committed error in convicting the appellants. Their conviction cannot be sustained. Consequently, this appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentences are set aside and both the appellants are acquitted of the offences charged with. Appellant Balram is in custody. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appellant Anchi shall not surrender to the bail bonds.Appeal Allowed. *******