JUDGMENT 1. Appellant Haricharan has knocked the doors of this Court against his conviction and sentence recorded under section 376 and 456 IPC by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Guna sentencing him to a term of 7 years' R.I. and fine Rs. 1,000/- under section 376 IPC and to a term of one year R.I. and fine Rs. 500/- under section 456 IPC, vide his judgment dated 4.10.89. 2. Briefly narrated the facts are that in the night of 13/14 July, 1988, the prosecutrix Mangibai (PW 4) was sleeping inside her house. Besides a child of 2 years of age, none else was in the family and the doors were closed. In the meantime, accused Haricharan entered her house and put his hands over her breasts. She woke up, cried, whereupon the accused closed her mouth, unturned her Lehanga and committed rape upon her forcibly. After committing rape, he escaped. While going away, he threatened her that she should not tell to anybody, else she will be killed. After the accused escaped, she started weeping, whereupon her neighbour Rajbai reached there and she narrated the story to her. Her husband had gone to Manpura on tite same day, he returned at about 12. She disclosed the occurrence to her husband. She along with her husband went to Guna for lodging the report. Report Ex. P-3 was lodged on 15.7.88 at 18.30 hours, which was prepared by O.P. Chouhan (PW 6). The case was registered u/s. 376/456 IPC against the accused. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Smt. Sudha Joshi (PW 1). After completing the usual investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. 3. The accused was charged under the aforesaid sections. He alleged that he had given Rs. 3,000/- to Bharosa, the husband of the prosecutrix, and when he demanded money, it was not paid and hence he has been falsely implicated. The prosecution examined PW 1 Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Joshi, who had medically examined the prosecutrix, PW 2 Bharosa, husband of Mangibai, PW 3 Dr. Murlidhar Maheshwari, who medically examined the accused Haricharan, PW 4 Mangibai, the prosecutrix, PW 5 Rajbai,. neighbour and Jethani of the prosecutrix and PW 6 a.p. Chouhan, who prepared the FIR. The prosecution has also relied upon the documents Ex. P-1 to P-4. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that the FIR is delayed and that too has not been proved in accordance with law. neighbour and Jethani of the prosecutrix and PW 6 a.p. Chouhan, who prepared the FIR. The prosecution has also relied upon the documents Ex. P-1 to P-4. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that the FIR is delayed and that too has not been proved in accordance with law. No independent witness has been examined. The medical report does not corroborate" the statement of the prosecutrix. He also pointed out that at the time of bail application aft affidavit was given by the prosecutrix to the affect that the accused did not commit rape upon her and this fact was admitted by the prosecutrix herself in cross-examination. In this way, there was practically no case against the' accused-appellant. In any case, it was a case of consent, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused committed any sexual intercourse, though this fact has been denied by the prosecutrix by her affidavit filed earlier. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that there is no delay in lodging the FIR. The statement of the prosecutrix is itself sufficient to show that she is a married lady, having 4 children and as such there could not be any corroboration by medical evidence so far as the offence of rape is concerned. 6. The statement of the prosecutrix is the only evidence on record on which the prosecution has banked upon. But if we go through the statement of the prosecutrix, we find that she has taken a somersault. No doubt, she has narrated the prosecution story in her examination-in-chief and bas deposed that on the date of occurrence, she was sleeping inside her house. Accused liauicharan enterep her house, put his hands on the breasts, whereupon she woke up and cried. The accused closed her mouth and committed rape upori her forcibly. it is significant to mention that in her examination-in-chief, she has not said that she resisted. She simply said that the accused committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly. She further stated that when the act completed, the accused ran away. Even if her statement is accepted, it clearly goes to show that she was a consenting party, but I shall show hereinafter that she herself had admitted that the accused did not commit rape upon her in the affidavit filed by her at the time of bail application. She further stated that when the act completed, the accused ran away. Even if her statement is accepted, it clearly goes to show that she was a consenting party, but I shall show hereinafter that she herself had admitted that the accused did not commit rape upon her in the affidavit filed by her at the time of bail application. When she was cross-examined, she stated in paragraph 6 that it was correct that at the time of grant of bail to the accused, she had given an affidavit, in which she got it written that the accused did not commit rape upon her (BURA KAM). At the time when she had given affidavit, her husband had also gone with her. In the teeth of this statement, that it was a fact that she had given the said affidavit, it is difficult to believe that any rape was committed upon her. The learned trial Court dealt this aspect in paragraph 19 of its judgment and pointed out that firstly the affidavit was not filed, though it was there on the record of the committal Court. The bail order did not show that the bail was granted on this count. The other reasoning given by the learned Court is that if any affidavit is obtained from the prosecutrix with the aim of obtaining a bail, it does not discredit the evidence of the prosecutrix. These observations made by the learned trial Court in paragraph 19 appears to be wholly incorrect. It shows that the learned Presiding Officer had no idea whatsoever of the criminal law as well as of the law of evidence. 7. Firstly, I may mention that once a fact has been admitted by a witness, it is not necessary at all that document containing that fact should be brought on record. The simple reason is that fact has to be proved by the best evidence. Had the witness not admitted• this fact, it was necessary for the defence to have drawn the attention of the witness to the averment made in the affidavit for the purpose of contradiction, as provided under section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The simple reason is that fact has to be proved by the best evidence. Had the witness not admitted• this fact, it was necessary for the defence to have drawn the attention of the witness to the averment made in the affidavit for the purpose of contradiction, as provided under section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. In that case, it would have been necessary to have filed the document, but as the witness has unequivocally admitted to have filed the affidavit and to have averred therein that the accused did not commit any rape upon her, it was not at all necessary for the defence to have filed the affidavit. Once a witness has admitted a particular fact earlier, and he admits it on oath that he had made that statement, the entire prosecution story falls on the ground. In the teeth of this statement made in the affidavit and admitted by the witness in Court, there was practically no case left. On this very ground itself, the' accused was entitled to acquittal. 9. I may also mention that it appears to me that the learned Presiding Officer has no idea whatsoever of the criminal law . It has come in the statement of the prosecutrix that on the date of occurrence itself, at about 20.00 her husband had returned home and she narrated the occurrence to him. On the same day, she and her husband went to lodge the report in the Guna Kotwali. They reached Guna in the evening and lodged the report in the Thana, but she had put her thumb impression. The report is Ex. P-3. If we peruse the report Ex. P-3, we find that the occurrence is alleged to be of 13/14-7-88 and the FIR was lodged on 15.7.88 at 18.30 hours. Thus this statement is not correct. Again, the lady stated in cross-examination that on the second day of the occurrence, she did not lodge the report, but she lodged report on the third day at 6.30 p.m. Not only this, she also stated in paragraph 7 that after the occurrence they had reached Guna, and they stayed at the Station. They slept at the station. Her husband also slept with her. In the morning, she got an application typed and handed it over to the Superintendent of Police. They slept at the station. Her husband also slept with her. In the morning, she got an application typed and handed it over to the Superintendent of Police. The S.P. took the application, noted something over it and sent it to the Guna Kotwari and directed her to go to Guna Kotwali. She thereafter went to the Thana on the third day evening and lodged the report. It, therefore, goes to show that some written report was given by the lady to the Superintendent of Police significantly, it was actually the FIR and this document has not seen the light of the day. A perusal of the statement of O.P. Chouhan, (PW 6), who had prepared the FIR Ex. P-3 shows that at the time of lodging the report Mangibai's husband was not with her. Mangibai did not give any typed application. he did not receive any written report from the Superintendent of Police. It, therefore, clearly shows that the typed report, which was handed over to the Superintendent of Police, according to the prosecutrix, has been suppressed. Once it is brought on record that the earliest information given by a person is suppressed, it has important bearing upon the case. The learned trial Court in paragraph 16 of its judgment has dealt with this aspect of the case and has observed that the application given to the Superintendent of Police was not brought on record, it will have no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It clearly goes to show that the learned Presiding Officer has no idea of the criminal law. It must be kept in mind that the Courts have always emphasized about the existance of the earliest version of the occurrence. If the earliest version of the occurrence is suppressed, it goes to show that the very genesis of the case has been suppressed and it has certainly an adverse effect upon the prosecution case. It also goes to show that the subsequent-report must be the result of deliberations and consultations. It therefore loses its importance. Thisis very significant and to say that it has no adverse effect upon the prosecution case is wholly unjustified. I have carefully considered the statement of the prosecutrix and the averment made by her in the affidavit filed earlier, which has been admitted by her. It therefore loses its importance. Thisis very significant and to say that it has no adverse effect upon the prosecution case is wholly unjustified. I have carefully considered the statement of the prosecutrix and the averment made by her in the affidavit filed earlier, which has been admitted by her. As said above, and considering the fact that the earliest version of the occurrence given by the prosecutrix has been suppressed, I am of the view that the accused-appellant cannot be convicted for any offence whatsoever. 9..Before parting, I may also mention that the prosecution has also adduced evidence to show that the petticoat worn by the lady had spots and the Chemical Examiner had found that it contained semen and human sperms. To my mind, this evidence too, in any case does not go to show that the accused had committed rape upon her. The simple reason is that the prosecutrix is a married lady. She had specifically admitted in paragraph 7 of her statement, that in the night, before going to Kotwali, she had slept with her husband. The possibility of having physical relation with her husband in that night cannot therefore be ruled out. In this view of the matter, the fact that semen and human sperms were found on the petticoat will have no significance. 10. In view of what has been said above, I Deed not go into the other material on record, which is also not of much significance, as the accused appellant could not be convicted. The appeal must therefore succeed. 11. In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges for which he has been tried. He is on bail. His bail-bonds are cancelled. He need not surrender. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.