JUDGMENT 1. Appellant along with another accused were tried for an offence u/s. 376 of the IPC. By judgment dated 1.5.87 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sihore, in Sessions Trial No. 14/83, appellant was found guilty for an offence u/s. 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for 6 months. Other accused has been acquitted. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Prosecution story is that on 9.11.1981 at about 5 p.m. prosecutrix Basubai (PW 2) was going to village Barkhedi along with her brother Santosh (PW 3) for getting jowar grinded in a flour mill. When she reached near the field of a border, appellant Wahid Khan caught hold of her, took her in the field and committed rape on her. Case of the prosecution further is that another accused (since acquitted) also raped her. Prosecutrix lodged a report (Ex. P-3) on 14.11.1981 at 5.30 p.m. Police after investigating the case submitted charge sheet against the appellant and another accused person. Appellant denied the allegation of the prosecution and his case is that he has been falsely implicated in the case. No defence witness has been examined. 3. Prosecution to bring home the guilt has altogether examined 11 witnesses. PW 1 is Dr. Ku. Ratan Sharma, who has examined the prosecutrix. PW 2 is the prosecutrix herself. PW 3 is the brother of prosecutrix who has accompanied her while going to the flour mill. PW 4 champalal came to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. PW 5 Moti is the father of the Prosecutrix whereas PW 6 is her mother. PW 7 Ramkaran is the witness who has advised the prosecutrix to lodge the report. PW 8 is Dr. V.C. Vatsalya, who has examined the appellant and found him capable for sexual intercourse. PW 9 is the head constable who has recorded the FIR. PW 10 came to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. PW 11 Mahadev Prasad is the head constable who has investigated the case and prepared the seizure list. 4. PW 1 Dr. Ku. Ratan Sharma on examination of the prosecutrix has not found any external injury on her private part. PW 10 came to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. PW 11 Mahadev Prasad is the head constable who has investigated the case and prepared the seizure list. 4. PW 1 Dr. Ku. Ratan Sharma on examination of the prosecutrix has not found any external injury on her private part. In the opinion of the doctor, no definite opinion can be given about rape and she has further stated that the prosecutrix was habitual for sexual intercourse. PW 2 the prosecutrix in her evidence has stated that she was going along with her brother Santosh (PW 3) to get the Jowar grinded in the flour mill and when she reached near the field of the barber, appellant came out from the Jowar field lifted her and took her to the Jowar field and "Bura Kam Kiya". She has further stated that she was wearing Petticoat, Dhoti and Blouse which was removed by the appellant and thereafter sexual intercourse was done (Bura Kam Kiya Tha). She has further stated in her evidence that she along with her brother went to the residence of the villagers and disclosed about the occurrence. She has further stated that her father was admitted in a hospital and as she was awaiting his arrival and on account of this delay has occurred in lodging the first information report. She has further stated that on raising the alarm, other accused carne there and as such she gave his name in the FIR. PW 3 Santosh the brother of the prosecutrix has stated in his evidence that when he along with his sister reached near the field of the barber, appellant came from inside the Jowar field and enquired as to whether she would be friendly to him at which, she replied in the negative. Thereafter, appellant took her inside the Jowar field. He has further stated that her sister was shouting for help. He has also stated in his evidence that on 'Halla', PW 4 Champalal came and on enquiry the prosecutrix said to him that appellant had raped her. PW 4 Champalal and PW 10 Amar Singh came to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. They have stated that on Halla when they reached near the place of occurrence, on enquiry prosecutrix has stated that she was subjected rape by the appellant as also another accused. PW 4 Champalal and PW 10 Amar Singh came to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. They have stated that on Halla when they reached near the place of occurrence, on enquiry prosecutrix has stated that she was subjected rape by the appellant as also another accused. PW 5 is the father of the prosecutrix and he has stated in his evidence that while he was in the hospital, his son Kailash came and informed that her daughter was raped by the appellant and another accused. PW 6 is the mother of the prosecutrix and she has stated in her evidence that the prosecutrix stated to her that she was subjected to rape by the appellant and another accused. PW 7 is the Chowkidar of the village who has stated that the prosecutrix and her mother narrated to him that appellant has committed rape on her. 5. Shri H.S. Dubey, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the case of the prosecution in relation to another accused having been found not to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and he has been acquitted. It would be unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant. It is relevant her to state that PW 2 the prosecutrix in her evidence has stated that she has implicated other accused in the case as he came at the place of occurrence immediately after she raised alarm. She has specifically stated in her evidence that another accused has neither caught hold of her nor committed any rape, whereas she has specifically stated that it was the appellant who lifted her, took her in the Jowar field and committed rape. This has been supported by PW 3 her brother, who had accompanied her. As the materials so far as it relate to the appellant is different than that of the acquitted accused, I am not inclined to accept the submission of Shri Dubey that one of the accused persons having been acquitted appellant's conviction is also fit to be set aside. 6. Shri Dubey then submits that there is inordinate delay in lodging of the first information report, which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. It is relevant here to state that occurrence has taken place on 9.11.1981 at 5.30 p.m. whereas the first information report has been lodged on 14.11.1981. 6. Shri Dubey then submits that there is inordinate delay in lodging of the first information report, which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. It is relevant here to state that occurrence has taken place on 9.11.1981 at 5.30 p.m. whereas the first information report has been lodged on 14.11.1981. It is well settled that mere delay in lodging the first information report shall not lead to throwing out the prosecution case on this ground alone. Here in the present case, delay has been sufficiently explained. At the time when the occurrence has taken place, the father of the prosecutrix was hospitalised. Prosecutrix has clearly stated in her evidence that she was awaiting the arrival of her father for the purpose of lodging the first information report. Father of the prosecutrix has also been examined as PW 5 and he has stated that in the hospital, he was informed that his daughter was subjected to rape by the appellant. Therefore the delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained by the prosecution and mere delay in the facts and circumstances of the case does not render the case of the prosecution doubtful in any way. 7. Shri Dubey then submits that there is no evidence to substantiate that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape. It this connection he has drawn my attention to the evidence of PW 3 the brother of the prosecutrix, who has clearly stated in his evidence that he has not seen the appellant committing rape. According to this witness, prosecutrix was taken inside the Jowar field. In that view of the matter, this witness having not himself seen the actual act of rape, will not lead to the conclusion that in fact no rape was committed. This witness has stated that when her sister came, on questioning as to why she was shouting, she has stated that it was the appellant who has raped her. PW 4 and PW 10 who have come to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident also state that the prosecutrix has stated to them that she was subjected to rape by the appellant. Evidence of the prosecutrix finds support from her brother who was accompanying her and has been corroborated by the witnesses who came to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. Evidence of the prosecutrix finds support from her brother who was accompanying her and has been corroborated by the witnesses who came to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. I do not find any infirmity in their evidence to discredit the case of the prosecution. 8. Shri Dubey further submits that the allegation of rape has not been supported by the medical evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. In this connection he has drawn my attention to the evidence of the doctor PW 1, who has stated in her evidence that she did not find any external injury or injury on private part of the prosecutrix. He further submits that the doctor has clearly opined that no rape has been committed. He has also drawn my attention to the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. P-15) wherein, he has stated that no spermatozoa was found on the slides sent to him for examination. Prosecutrix is a married lady, and in that view of the matter mere absence of injury on her person shall not lead to the fact that she was not subjected to rape. Absence of spermatozoa also is of no consequence. In the present case, the prosecutrix was subjected to rape on 9.11.1981 whereas she was examined by the doctor for the first time on 14.11.1981. At the time of examination by the doctor, prosecutrix has menstruation period. Thus, mere absence of spermatozoa will not dis-credit the prosecution case. 9. As a last straw, Shri Dubey submits that the prosecutrix having not stated that she was subjected to sexual intercourse, the whole prosecution story has to be thrown out. It is relevant here to state that the prosecutrix in her evidence has stated that after removing her clothes, the appellant, to use her own expression, Bura Kant Kiya Tha' '. Shri Dubey submits that the use of the expression Bura Kant Kiya by the prosecutrix does not convey the meaning that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case Kailash v. State of M.P. 1990 (1) MPWN Note 56. As this judgment in my opinion has been largely. mis-understood, it is apt to reproduce the same in its entirety. Mulchand (PW 1) and Meerabai (PW 2) say that Guddi returned home at 11.00 pm. As this judgment in my opinion has been largely. mis-understood, it is apt to reproduce the same in its entirety. Mulchand (PW 1) and Meerabai (PW 2) say that Guddi returned home at 11.00 pm. Mulchand (PW 1) adjured her to speak the truth as to where she had been. She said: "BABUJI BADI GALTI HO GAI". She further said that she was in the house of Kailash. She further said that Kailash had done "BURA KAM" with her. The FIR (Wx. P-1) of Mulchand (PW 1) about the girl's statement reads as follows: "MAIN KAILASH KEY AHAN THEE GALTI HO GAI BABUJI". Thus, PW 1 Mulchand's statement in the Court that Guddi had told him that Kailash had done "BURA KAM" with her is clearly an embelishment. This is also confirmed by the evidence of Heerabai (PW 2) to the effect that all the girl said was that Kailash had detained her. I therefore, hold that PW 1 Mu1chand cannot be believed when he says that Guddi had told him that the accused had done "BURA KAM" with her. Assming for the sake of the arguments that the girl did make the statement, namely, the accused had done "BURA KAM" with her, that statement does not amount to any substantive evidence of the factum of the alleged rape. Such a statement could have been used as a corroborative piece of evidence under section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, if the girl assuming that she had not committed the suicide deposed in the Court that the accused had committed rape on her. Such a situation is not here. The result is that the statement which Mu1chand (PW I) has put in the mouth of Guddi about the so-called' 'BURA KAM' , does not amount to any evidence of rape as against the appellant. Thus, it is a case of no evidence at all so far as the connection of the appellant with the rape of Kumari Guddi is concerned. Appeal allowed." Underlining mine for emphasis. In the aforesaid case the fact of prosecutrix having said that" Bum Kam Kiya" has itself been disbelieved. It further found that even if the prosecutrix has made such statement, the same does not amount to any substantive evidence of the factum of rape. Judgment referred to above nowhere states that the expression Bum Kam Kiya cannot be read to mean sexual intercourse. 10. It further found that even if the prosecutrix has made such statement, the same does not amount to any substantive evidence of the factum of rape. Judgment referred to above nowhere states that the expression Bum Kam Kiya cannot be read to mean sexual intercourse. 10. It is comm0n knowledge, that in different parts of the country, a particular act is described in many ways and different expressions are used for the purpose of same act. In my opinion, evidence of a witness has to be understood from the language of the people of that area. It is not expected of a witness to use in deposition the words mentioned in codified law. A Judge is under an obligation to understand what a witness desires to convey. Here in the present case the prosecutrix has stated that after removing her clothes Bum Kam Kiya which shall mean nothing than sexual intercourse. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel. 11. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.