JUDGMENT 1. Appellant Omprakash has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence recorded under section 376 IPC by Sessions Judge, Guna. The appellant/accused was convicted under section 376 IPC for committing rape with Gangabai (P.W. 1). 2. Gangabai (P.W. 1) is the daughter of Shakuntala Bai (P.W. 3) and Bhimsingh (P.W. 4). Bhimsingh (P.W. 4) was the tenant of Shyamlal, father of the accused. He was residing with his family on the first floor of the house. 3. The prosecution case is that eight days before Dassehra festival of 1985, Bhimsingh (P. W. 4) received information regarding death of his elder brother in village Bodvania, district Dhar, whereupon he and his wife went to that place leaving their children in village Umari. He said his elder son Narendra accompanied them upto Guna. It is further stated that prosecuterix Gangabai was all alone in the house as her younger sister and brother had gone to their school. As it was raining, the accused came to her house to enquire as to where the water leaks. He asked for a matech-box and as soon on she turned her back, accused bolted the door from inside. When she came back with the match-box accused caught hold of her both the hands, forcibly fell her down, removed his lungi and ravished her. It is said that she resisted but could not succeed in pushing him aside. Thereafter the accused ran away. It is the further case that Gangabai (P. W. 1) wept and went to Shyamlal (accused's father) to complain against the accused but he refused to listen to her. On the next day, Narendra came back from Guna. She told him that accused had misbehaved with her. It is said that when Narendra enquired about it, the accused slaped him and threatened him to kill. The prosecution alleges that after two months Bhimsingh (P.W. 4) and Shakuntala Bai (P.W. 3) came bakc to Umari, but the prosecuterix did not disclose the incident to them. It is stated that, Ganga Bai (P.W. 1) became pregnant, and seeing her protuding stomach once Shakuntalabai enquired from her and then she narrated the incident. Her parents approached Shyamlal either to accept Gangabai as his daughter-in-law or to give them some amount for her abortion, but Shyamlal was adamant, he rebuked them for levelling felse charge against his son. 4. Her parents approached Shyamlal either to accept Gangabai as his daughter-in-law or to give them some amount for her abortion, but Shyamlal was adamant, he rebuked them for levelling felse charge against his son. 4. It was on 19.3.1986 when Gangabai (P.W. 1) came to Guna along with her mother and submitted the written report, Ex. P/1. This report was sent to police station Myana, where on 20.3.1986, offence was registered under section 376 IPC at Crime No. 36/86 against the accused/appellant. Gangabai (P.W.1) was sent for medical examination. Dr. Harjeet Kaur (P.W. 9) examined her on 19.3.1986. According to doctor at that time Gangabai was having six or seven months pregnancy. For determination of age, her accification test was done by Dr. R.K. Jain (P.W. 2). On the basis of radiological data, doctor opined her age above 18 years. 5. During investigation spot-memo Ex. P/3 was prepared on 16.5.1986 the accused was arrested. 6. After usual investigation, the challan was filed against the accused. Accused/appellant abjured the guilt and contended that he has been falsely implicated. 7. On 9.4.1986 Gangabai, the prosecuterix along with her mother Shakuntalabai lodged a private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna against the accused/appellant. By order dated 1. 7.1986 this was merged in the challan. 8. The learned Sessions Judge after assessing the evidence on record found the accused guilty for the offence under section 376 IPC and convicted accordingly. 9. Shri J.P. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that FIR in this case is highly belated. It has been lodged after seven months. He contended that there is no substantive explanation for committing delay in lodging the F.I.R. 10. The prosecuterix in this case has stated that eight days before Dushhara of 1985 her parents had proceeded to Dhar, as they were informed that her father's elder brother has been murdered. Her brother Narendra had gone with them upto Guna. During the day she was all alone in the house. It is started raining. At that time, accused came to her house to enquire as to where the water leaks. He found her all alone in the house. He asked her to bring a match-box. When she went inside to bring the match-box, he bolted the door from inside. During the day she was all alone in the house. It is started raining. At that time, accused came to her house to enquire as to where the water leaks. He found her all alone in the house. He asked her to bring a match-box. When she went inside to bring the match-box, he bolted the door from inside. As she came back he threatened her at the point of knife, caught hold of her both the hands, fell her down, untied his lungi, and removed her clothes and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. She tried her best to extricate herself from his grip, but could not do so. In para 4 of her statement she states that she went to the shop of the accused's father to complain as to for what purpose he had sent his son to her house. He denied, having sent and stated that as her father and mother had gone outside she should go to home. He refused to listen to her. She came back to her house. She did not disclose the incident to accused's father. She further states that Narendra (her brother) came back next day after leaving mother and father and she told the incident. She states that Narendra had gone to the accused and enquired him as to why he had misbehaved with his sister upon which accused slaped him and threatened to kill. She further states that her brother had lodged the report about threatening but that has not been filed. 11. Bhimsingh (P.W. 4), father of the prosecuterix, is a private medical practitioner. He says that when he returned back to his house he did not know anything. It was February, 1986 when he was told that his daughter Gangabai was sufferring from stomach pain. Then he enquired from Gangabai (P.W. 1) and found that she was having pregnancy of 4 1/2-5 months. He then slaped her and asked what has happened? She narrated the incident, and revealed the name of Omprakash. It is further stated that he alongwith his wife had gone to the accused's house and said Shyamlal (accused' father) either to accept their daughter Gangabai as daughter-in-law or to pay some money for her abortion, but he refused. The evidence of P.W.3 Shakuntalabai is also in the same manner. 12. In cross-examination, the prosecuterix initially stated that she was 14 years. The evidence of P.W.3 Shakuntalabai is also in the same manner. 12. In cross-examination, the prosecuterix initially stated that she was 14 years. According to her in the yea 11 when they came to Umri she was admitted to class I and she was about 5 years old. She admitted that she has completed her 20th year. She further admitted that there had been Marpeet between her brother and the accused-appellant and her brother made a report about it, and when her brother went to make a report about the incident she thought that the accused will get the house vacated. She further admitted that she was prepared not to make a report if the accused would have given her Rs. 500/- or 600/-. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the report has been lodged highly belated, the conduct of the prosecution witnesses namely P.W. 1 Gangabai, P.W. 3 Shakuntalabai and P.W. 4 Bhimsingh does not inspire confidence. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. raises suspicion on the entire prosecution case. 14. Considering all this, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of P. W.1 Gangabai does not inspire confidence. 15. In the medical report Ex. P/4 the age of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 18 years on the date of the incident. In para 7 the prosecutrix states that she is a school going girl and her age is of 14-15 years. In para 9 she states that a school certificate was taken by the police and the record of her birth was seen by D.S.P. Mishra, but that record has not been placed. She admitted that she wrote a letter to accused to give 500 or 600 rupees so that pregnancy could be terminated, and if the accused would have paid to her the said amount she would not have lodged the report. This statement demolishes the prosecution case. 16. In view of what has been stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not placed legal and reliable evidence to connect the appellant with the said offence. In other words, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside. Appellant Omprakash is on bail. He need not surrender before C.J.M., Guna. In other words, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside. Appellant Omprakash is on bail. He need not surrender before C.J.M., Guna. His bail bond and surety bond are discharged.