Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. This Govt. appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.11.1986, passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge Samastipur whereby and whereunder the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents the charges levelled under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in short, is that on 30.11.1983 the Informants daughter aged about 5 years , namely, Nasrun Nisa was playing with other children at about 11 a.m. in front of the house when the appellant Md. Idrish came there and lured Nasrun Nisa to give lemon drop and on the pretext of giving lemon drop took her to his house where he committed rape on her. On the cries of the victim girl, her mother and grand mother went to the house of Idrish. They saw that Idrish was running away from the south-west room of his house wrapping his lungi and the victim girl was writhing on the floor. The string of her Salwar was found unfastened which was besmeared with blood. Blood was also flowing from the private part of the victim girl. When the Informants wife and mother were taking the victim girl to the Thana, the village Mukhiya, Md. Hassan (accused) and his brother Md. Quasim, accused stopped them on way. Accused Md. Hassan, who had medicine shop in the village and who is also a quack gave injection and some ointment to the victim girl. He also assured the Informants wife and mother to take legal action against Md. Idrish. It has been further stated that at the time of the occurrence, the Informant was in Calcutta. He came to the village on 10.12.1983. He was informed about the occurrence of rape of his female child by his family members and he also saw the condition of the child deteriorating. On the same evening, he went to the place of village Mukhiya to condemn him for giving cover to a heinous crime and also to prevent his wife and mother from going to the Police Station. Md. Hassan told the Informant that what can he do when father and brother of Md. Idrish managed his escape from the village. It has been alleged that on 11.12.1983 the Informant with his victim daughter and grand mother, Safidan Khatoon proceeded to the Police Station but on the way Md. Hassan, Mansoor Ali, Md. Quasim, Md. Jai, Md. Md. Hassan told the Informant that what can he do when father and brother of Md. Idrish managed his escape from the village. It has been alleged that on 11.12.1983 the Informant with his victim daughter and grand mother, Safidan Khatoon proceeded to the Police Station but on the way Md. Hassan, Mansoor Ali, Md. Quasim, Md. Jai, Md. Joha, Md. Nairn and Md. Moiunuddin wrongfully restrained them from proceeding to the Police Station. They tried to return them with threatening. In the meantime, Md. Isha, Md. Habib Altaf Hussain, Alamgar and others came and intervened and thus the Informant along with victim daughter and his grand mother came to the Police Station and lodged information (fardbeyan). He also produced the blood-stained Salwar of the victim girl on the basis of which FIR was drawn up by Mohiuddin Nagar P.S. on 11.12.1983. After completion of the investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. The defence of the respondents is that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined 16 witnesses. Out of 16 witnesses PW 1 is Nasirun Nisa, wife of the Informant. PW 9, mother of the Informant and PW 10, grand mother of the Informant have fully supported the case of the prosecution on the point of occurrence. PW 8, Abdul Rashid is the Informant. PW 11 is the Investigating Officer. PW 5 is Dr. Satya Ranjan Prasad Singh, who examined the victim girl. PW 4 is Md. Isa. PW 6 is Md. Habib, a tendered witness. PW 7 is Md. Kayum, a formal witness, who had proved the fardbeyan and FIR, Exts. 3 and 4. PW 12 is Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha, PW 13 is Harinandan Jha, PW 14 is Shyam Sagar Pd. Singh, PW 15 is Lakshmi Narayan Lal and PW 16 is Nitya Nand Jha, formal witness. The defence has also examined two witnesses; DW 1, Md Tauhid and DW 2, Abdul Moiz. 5. 3 and 4. PW 12 is Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha, PW 13 is Harinandan Jha, PW 14 is Shyam Sagar Pd. Singh, PW 15 is Lakshmi Narayan Lal and PW 16 is Nitya Nand Jha, formal witness. The defence has also examined two witnesses; DW 1, Md Tauhid and DW 2, Abdul Moiz. 5. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the witnesses of fact PWs 1, 9 and 10 had corroborated the statements of each other when the father and of the victim girl, Abdul Rashid, Informant (PW 8) received the letter of his wife Nasirun Nisa, he came back from Calcutta and lodged First Information Report. He has further stated that these witnesses PWs 1, 9 and 10 mother, grandmother and great grand-mother of the victim girl are the witnesses on the factum of occurrence. PW 9 has stated that neighbours of the surrounding house came at the house of respondents as soon as the victim girl cried loudly which also drew attention of PWs 9 and 10 and they came to the house of respondents. PW 1 has also PW 1 has also named a coupled of persons whose houses were adjacent to the house of respondent. 6. The prosecution has not examined any independent neighbour who came at the place of occurrence. The victim girls age has been determined 7 years by the Court. She also remained silent in the Court when the prosecution wanted to cross-examine her, PW 11, the Investigating Officer has stated that the victim girl named the accused respondent before him which was prompted by her grand mother. PW 1 has stated that the letter was sent to her husband (PW 8) was written by one Hasina. It was sent through Kayum. The said letter was not produced in Court, therefore, it was not examined. The earlier information of the alleged occurrence as written in the letter has not been produced in the Court as a document. That apart, regarding the prosecution story that the Mukhiya stopped the mother of the victim girl and her grand-mother PW 9 from going to the Police Station to lodge a report on the date of occurrence seems to be concocted. The brother in law of PW 1 Farid was a student of B.A., another boy whose name was Matifuz who was also a student of class 12, were present in the house. The brother in law of PW 1 Farid was a student of B.A., another boy whose name was Matifuz who was also a student of class 12, were present in the house. They can early go to the Police Station to lodge First Information Report but they did not go to the Police Station to report the matter. It has also been stated by the grand mother PW 9 that Farid was the pairvikar of the case and he attended the Court on each hearing as such it is expected that he should have lodged the report immediately after the occurrence took place. Even the village Choukidar, Dafadar were at the Police Chauki but they were not informed about the occurrence which also creates doubt. The FIR was lodged in a very belated stage. 7. PW 10 has stated in cross-examination that she deposed whatever was told to her by Farid and Pashid. She has further stated that no such alleged occurrence of rape took place in the house of the respondent. In view of all these facts, the prosecution case seems to be afterthought. The alleged bloodstained Salwar which was sent for chemical examination. No blood and spermatozoa were found on it. Only few dots of brownish stains and a few small dots of greenish white stains were found. It has been stated that those dots might be caused because of all of any food article on the clothes while the victim girl was taking meal. Therefore, it does not give any conclusive evidence about rape. PW 5, Dr. S.K.P.Singh, who examined the victim girl has stated that he did not find any sign of rape on the person of the victim girl. He has further stated that such injury would be caused by thrusting thumb inside the private part. The medical evidence is not corroborative with the evidence of other material witnesses. On examination of defence witnesses and the voter list, the Court below came to a finding that there was a divorce a month back in which brother of respondent- Idrish had divorced his wife who was the sister of the Informant. This created bitterness among the Informant and respondent. PW 1 mother of the victim girl has also stated in her cross-examination that she got her daughter treated by a private doctor for her injury of rape for about a month. This created bitterness among the Informant and respondent. PW 1 mother of the victim girl has also stated in her cross-examination that she got her daughter treated by a private doctor for her injury of rape for about a month. The prosecution did not examine the doctor who treated and examined the alleged injury on the person of the victim girl who gave first aid for the first time. Moreover, non-examination of neighbours as independent witnesses, who came at the place of occurrence, non-production of letter which was sent at Calcutta, to give earlier version of occurrence, the delay in lodging the FIR, denial of occurrence by elderly grand mother, PW 10 in her cross-examination, all these create doubt in the truthfulness of the prosecution story. In this view of the matter, the Court below has rightly acquitted the respondents of the charge punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.