JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order dated 17.4.87, in Sessions Trial No. 40/84, passed by Shri N.P. Mehar, Sessions Judge Vidisha, where the accused-appellant has been convicted for offence under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for two years. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix Leelabai (P.W. 1) was, at the relevant time, living in her maternal uncle's house at village Baruakhar. On 17th September' 83, at about 3 p.m., the prosecutrix had gone in the field belonging to one Hakka. While she was cutting the grass, accused came from behind, caught hold of her, made her lie an the ground and committed forcible intercourse with her. She raised alarma and it is alleged that hearing her cry her maternal uncle Bhagirath arrived at the spat and shouted, upon which, the accused ran away from there. The prosecutrix (P. W. 1) Leelabai, then, came back to her house and narrated the incident to her maternal grandmather i.e., 'Nani'. It is stated that her meternal uncle with wham she was living had gone to village Jhagri and her aunt had gone to Shamshabad. The prosecutrix is a married lady who is said to' be married 4-5 years priar to' the incident and was living with 'her Mausi's house, as Gauna had not taken place. It is stated that the father-in-law and mother-in-law were also not there so. there part was made an 21.4.83 at police station Shamshabad. In the report Ex. P/1 it is mentioned that the prosecutrix alongwith her father-in-law Dharma Kori and Chawkidar of the village lodged the report. On the same day she was sent far medical examination where P.W. 5 Dr. Mrs. Manju Jain examined her and gave a report Ex. P/4. She did not find any mark of injury an any part of the body of Leelabai. On internal examination also no. marks of injury seen aver labia, majora and minora. No mark of stain seen. It was found that the Hymen was torned, old tears present. Vagina admitted two fingers easily. There was no. bleeding nor tenderness. The doctor gave report that no definite opinion about sexual intercourse could be given as the girl was habituated to sexual intercouse. 3. After the report, the S.H.O. N.P. Shrivastava (P.W. 13) visited the spat and prepared spat-map Ex. P/2. The accused was arrested an 22.9.83. Vagina admitted two fingers easily. There was no. bleeding nor tenderness. The doctor gave report that no definite opinion about sexual intercourse could be given as the girl was habituated to sexual intercouse. 3. After the report, the S.H.O. N.P. Shrivastava (P.W. 13) visited the spat and prepared spat-map Ex. P/2. The accused was arrested an 22.9.83. He was also sent far medical examination. P.W. 11 Dr. G.P. Agarwal examined him at 12 O' clock and gave a report Ex. P/8. After usual investigation challan was filed which was committed to the Court of Sessions in due course. 4. The Sessions Judge framed charge u/s. 376 of I.P.C. The accused-appellant abjured the guilt and contended that he has been falsely implicated. 5. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Leelabai, P.W. 2 Nihalsingh, P.W. 3 Kalyansingh, P.W. 4 Dharma, P.W. 5 Dr. Mrs. Manju Jain, P.W. 6 Babulal, P.W. 7 Bhagirath, P.W. 8 Phaalsingh, P.W. 9 Biriyabai, P.W. 10 Jagdish Ram, P.W. 11 Dr. G.P. Agarwal, P.W. 12 N.B. Rajput and P.W. 13 N.P. Shrivastava. No. defence witness has been examined. After completion of trial the learned Sessions Judge found the accused-appellant guilty and, as such, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, hence, this appeal. 6. Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel far the appellant assailed the finding of the trial Court and submitted that the F.I.R. is highly belated and there is no. plausible explanation offered by the prosecution. The incident is said to have taken place an 17.9.83 whereas the report has been lodged an 21st September' 83. The prosecutrix states that Bhagirath had came and has shouted and hearing it the accused had run away. The prosecutrix further states that she had came and narrated the incident to her maternal grandmother and also to Chironji and Ganesh (bath sans of her maternal uncle Baldeo). The explanation offered by the prosecutrix regarding the delay in lodging the report does not appear to be satisfactory and there is delay in lodging the report which raises serious doubt in the prosecution version. 7. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the prosecution version is not supported by Bhagirath (P.W. 1). He has denied that he heard the cry of the prosecutrix and went to the field, shouted and as a result thereof accused ran away. Bhagirath was declared hostile. 7. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the prosecution version is not supported by Bhagirath (P.W. 1). He has denied that he heard the cry of the prosecutrix and went to the field, shouted and as a result thereof accused ran away. Bhagirath was declared hostile. It was further contended that the maternal grandmother i.e., P.W. 9 Biriyabai has not supported the prosecutrix and prosecution version. She has denied that Leelabai ever told her about any incident being occurred with her. She says that Leelabai had come and brought the grass. She says that Leelabai's father-in-law Dharma had come and. he had asked her to enquire from Leelabai as to whether any quarrel had taken place with her. When she enquired from Leelabai she did not say anything, then, Dharma took Leelabai with him. She was declared hostile and cross examined by the Govt Pleader, but there is nothing in her evidence. 8. Shri A.K. Shrivastava, then, contended that the version of the prosecutrix is not supported with the medical evidence on record. On being medically examined, P. W. 5 Dr. Mrs. Manju Jain did not find any external injury on her body. Leelabai P. W. 1 in her deposition had said that it was for the first time that intercourse was committed with her by the accused as she had not gone to her husband's house because her Gauna had not taken place. This statement of the prosecutrix is contradicted by the evidence of Dr. Manju Jain, who opined that the prosecutrix seems to be habitual of sexual intercourse. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate Shri M.M. Qureshi submitted that delay in FIR has been explained. He also contended that the evidence of prosecutrix itself is sufficient. 9. Having considered the rival contention of the parties and having gone through the record it is clear that there is delay of 4 days in lodging the FIR and no plausible explanation has come forward. It is also apparent that P.W. 7 Bhagirath (maternal uncle) and P.W. 9 Biriyabai (grand mother) did not support the prosecutrix and there is no reason for them not to support her. It is also apparent that P.W. 7 Bhagirath (maternal uncle) and P.W. 9 Biriyabai (grand mother) did not support the prosecutrix and there is no reason for them not to support her. On the otherhand her grand mother P. W. 9 Biriyabai categorically stated that father-in-law of the prosecutrix had come and enquired as to whether any quarrel had taken place with Leelabai and she ascertained from Leelabai who did not tell her anything. She says that Leelabai was taken by her father-in-law. 10. The medical evidence on record also does not corroborate the prosecutrix. There are no marks of injury. Even there is no tenderness present. Medical evidence does not support the prosecution version at all. No injury external or internal was found and in fact there is nothing to infer that any intercourse was committed. Moreso, when the prosecutrix assails that she has not even cohabited with her husband. Her evidence does not inspire confidence. The evidence of prosecutrix is not such on which implicit reliance can be placed. 11. The prosecution has alleges injuries on the person of the accused, as per report Ex. P/8, the following injuries were found on the body of accused:- (i) Abrasion on front of left leg, middle 1/3rd region anterior aspect, upper and medially lower and laterally oblique in directio. size 5 cms x 1/10 cms. (ii) Abrasion on right thigh anterior aspect 1" above right knee, circular in shape. Size 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm. (iii) Abrasion on posterior aspect of right elbow Size 2/10 cms x 2/10 cms. As regards the injuries the prosecutrix nowhere says that she inflicted any of the injury on the person of accused. In fact her attention was pointedly drawn towards this aspect and in paragraph 19 she says that she did not see any injury on the person of the accused. She does not say that any injuries were inflicted. As per report Ex. P/8 injuries found on the body of accused are all abrasions. The doctor has opined that no sign of struggle on the body except injuries mentioned above. All injuries were caused by hard and rough object. P.W, 11 Dr. G.P. Agarwal, in para-12, says that these injuries could be caused by stick beaten or by any hard and blunt object. Injury No.2 could be caused by lathi. It is not the case of prosecution that any lathi etc. All injuries were caused by hard and rough object. P.W, 11 Dr. G.P. Agarwal, in para-12, says that these injuries could be caused by stick beaten or by any hard and blunt object. Injury No.2 could be caused by lathi. It is not the case of prosecution that any lathi etc. was used. These injuries do not connect the appellant with offence. 12. P.W. 1 Leelabai, in para-19 admits that the cattle of the accused used to pass through the field of his father-in-law. She has, however, denied that on this count a quarrel had taken place between appellant and her father-in-law. She has also denied that relations between her in-law, her maternal uncle & her husband with the accused were strain and Marpeet had taken place. She, however, admits that the cattle of the accused used to pass through her father-in-law's field. 13. P.W. 4 Dharma says that it was Bhagchand who had informed that Shobharam's wife i.e., Prosecutrix was caught hold by Yasin and intercourse was committed. Bhagchand has not been produced and the evidence of Dharma is hearsay. He says that hearing this he went to Leelabai's house and she told him the incident, whereas this fact is not supported by Leelabai's maternal grandmother. It is said that Bhagchand was in the village when this incident occurred but he did not lodge the report. So far Bhagchand's telling to Dharma is concerned this fact is not in his case diary statement and there is omission. P.W. 4 Dharma in para 7 admitted that in the village there was dispute and in the village' there are two groups. In one group accused's father was there and during those days because of dispute police used to come in the village quite often, but it was not reported immediately. 14. Having considered all aspects of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside. The accused is acquitted. He is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged: