Judgment Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-The abovenarned accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the Judgment and order dated 23-9-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera District Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 29/99 by which he convicted both the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 376 and 341, IPC and sentenced in the following manner :-Name of accused appellantsconvicted under section sectence awarded 1. Babu Lal 2. Devi Lal376 IPC 341 IPCSeven years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month SI. One month SI. .2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :-ON 17-6-1998, PW1 Mst. Lehribai (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) gave a written report Ex. P/1 to the Supreintendent of Police, Chittorgarh in the form of a complaint stating inter-alia that she and accused appellants hailed from the same village and on 29-4-1998 at about 11.00 a.m. when she went towards well for drinking water to the buffaloes and after that, when she was coming to her house, accused appellant Babulal came there on cycle and told her that he would pay Rs. 500/-and asked her to go to the Bada and when she tried to run away, he forcibly took her to the Bada, where accused-appellant Devilal also came and thereafter, they both caught hold her and committed rape on her one by one and in doing so, they caused injuries on her breast etc. and blood-stained were found on the clothes which were wearing by her at that time and thereafter, they both ran away and when she was returning to her house, her husband PW7 RamChandra met her and she told him that both accused-appellants have committed rape on her and her bangles which were broken at the time of committing rape on her by the accused-appellants were also lying on the spot and, thereafter, her husband PW7 Ramchandra reported the whole incident to the parents of the appellant Devilal and they told that they would take him to task. Thereafter, the prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to her father-in-law PW5 Amritram and mother-in-law PW6 Sitabai. Thereafter, the prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to her father-in-law PW5 Amritram and mother-in-law PW6 Sitabai. It is further stated in the report that she remained for 15 days at Badoli and when her father came to know, he took her to village Khermaliya, where she told the whole story to her parents also and the story about commission of rape on her by the accused-appellant has spread in whole of the village. It is further stated in the report that as the accused-appellants have given threat, therefore, report could not be lodged earlier and the same has been lodged on 17-6-1998, though the incident took place on 29-4-1998. On this report, a case FIR No. 287/98 (Ex. P/19) was registered at the Police Station Nimbahera District Chittorgarh and investigation was started. During investigation, prosecutrix PW1 Lehribai was got medically examined by PW9 Dr. B.R. Alawat on .23-6-1998 and her medical examination report is Ex. P/6. She was also got examined in respect of age by PW8 Dr. Vijay Purohit and her report about age is Ex. P19. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused-appellants before the Court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 7-10-1999, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera framed charges against both the accused-appellants for the offence Under Sections 376 and 341, IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellants. Both the accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-appellants Under Section 313, Cr. P.C. were recorded. No evidence in defence was produced. However, some documents were got exhibited in defence. It may be stated here that during the course of investigation, statement of the pro secutrix Under Section 164, Cr. P.C. was also recorded by the Magistrate PW15 Govind Agrawal and the same is Ex. P17. After conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera District Chittorgarh through his Judgment and order dated 23-9-2000 convicted both the accused-appellants for the offence Under Sections 376 and 341, IPC and sentenced in the manner as stated above holding inter-alia that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the argument of delay was not found favourable with the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Aggrieved from the said Judgment and order dated 23-9-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera, the present appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants. .3. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants :- 1. That FIR in the present case has been lodged after delay of one and half months and no explanation is forthcoming for the said delay. The reasons which have been mentioned in the complaint for the delay in filing the FIR are absolutely false one and thus, from this point of view also, the whole case of the prosecution washes out. 2. That PW1 Mst. Lebribat, prosecutrix has also admitted in her cross-examination that accused-appellants had given her Rs. 500/-after the alleged incident and if the accused-appellants had forcibly committed intercourse with her, then there was no question of accused-appellants having given money to her and thus, from this point of view also, no case of rape is made out against the accused-appellants and it is a case of consent. 3. Hence, it is prayed that this appeal may be allowed and the accused-appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera. 5. I haveheard the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 6. Before proceeding further, first medical evidence in the present case has to be seen. 7. Sofar,as the age of the prosecutrix PW1 Mst. Lehribai is concerned, she is a married lady and in her statement recorded in the Court on 2-12-1999, she has stated her age as 22 years and in her statement recorded Under Section 164, Cr. P.C., she has also stated her age as 20 years. PW8 Dr. Vijay Purohit has also opined that her radiological age is above 21 years. He has proved report Ex. P19. 8. Thus, from the above it can easily be said that on the date of alleged incident, the age of the prosecutrix PW1 Mst. Lehribai was more than 21 years and she was a major lady. .9. Themedical examination report of the prosecutrix PW1 Lebri Bai is Ex. P/6 and the same has been proved by PW9 Dr. B.R. Alawat. 8. Thus, from the above it can easily be said that on the date of alleged incident, the age of the prosecutrix PW1 Mst. Lehribai was more than 21 years and she was a major lady. .9. Themedical examination report of the prosecutrix PW1 Lebri Bai is Ex. P/6 and the same has been proved by PW9 Dr. B.R. Alawat. He states that he examined prosecutrix on 23-6-1598 though the incident took place on 29-4-1998 and found :- 1. That prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse. 2. That her private parts did not have any injury. 10. Thus, it can be easily said that prosecutrix was not having any sort of injury either on private part or other parts of her body. .11. Before proceeding further, something should be said about legal aspect with respect to appreciation of evidence of prosecutrix and the same can be summarised in the following manner 1. That the main evidence in all such cases is that of victim herself 2. That corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix in rape case is not required as a rule of law. But, corroboration should ordinarily be required in the case of a woman having attained majority and who is habitual to sexual intercourse and is found in a compromising position, as in such cases there is, likelihood of her having levelled such an accusation on account of instinct of self -preservation or when the probabilities factor is found to be out of time. 3. That corroboration may be by facts and circumstances. 4. That the injury on the person of the victim, especially her private parts, had corroborative value, 5. That if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the probabilities factor does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. 12. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, AIR 196 SC 1393 : (1996 CriLJ 1728), the Hori’ble Supreme Court has held that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial Court must be lalive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations. 13. 12. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, AIR 196 SC 1393 : (1996 CriLJ 1728), the Hori’ble Supreme Court has held that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial Court must be lalive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations. 13. Keeping the above legal aspect in mind, the facts of the present case are being examined. .14. PW1 Mst. Lehribai (prosecutrix) in her examination-in-chief has stated how the incident took place and she has further stated that report in the Thana was lodged after one and half months because she fell ill. In her cross-examination, she has admitted the following facts :- 1. That accused-appellant Babulal put Rs. 500/-in her blouse, which she threw. 2. That both accused-appellants took her to the bada by dragging her, as a result of which she received some injuries on hand and foot and blood also came out from her vagina. 3. That when accused-appellants bite her cheek and breast, visible sign of Teeth was also there. 4. That after the incident when she fell ill, she got the treatment in the Government Hospital, Nimbahera and after taking medicines she used to go back to home and she was suffering from stomach pain 5. That she fully recovered after one month of the incident and, thereafter, she lodged the report. 6. That no report was sent to the police even.through Dak. 7. That after the alleged incident, both accused-appellants fled away from the village. 8. That Rs. 500/-which was given by the accused- appellants were not put in the blouse by herself , but they were put by accused-appellants in her blouse. 9. That on the date of alleged incident, her husband PW7 Ramcharidra was in the village. 15. PW5 Amritram is the father-in-law of the prosecutrix. He has admitted that for making a report we started consulting Narainsingh, Advocate and for 15 days, we were consulting him. 16. PW6 Sitabai is the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix. She states that report has been lodged when Thakur of the Village directed and if Thakur would not have permitted, no report would have been lodged. 17. PW7 Ramchandra is the husband of the prosecutrix. 16. PW6 Sitabai is the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix. She states that report has been lodged when Thakur of the Village directed and if Thakur would not have permitted, no report would have been lodged. 17. PW7 Ramchandra is the husband of the prosecutrix. He has admitted the fact that on the date of alleged incident he was in the village and on the next day, he took his wife PW1 Mst. Lehribai, prosecutrix to the Government Hospital, Nimbahera for treatment. 18. The next question that arises for consideration in the above circumstances is whether a case of rape as alleged by the pro secutrix can be accepted or not, taking into consideration the fact that alleged incident took place on 29-4-1998 and the report was lodged on 17-6-1998. 19. Therule as to corroboration must be present in the mind of a Judge and corroboration should ordinarily be required in the case of a woman having attained majority, as already stated above. 20. In this case, there is not an iota of evidence which goes to show that on the date of occurrence, prosecutrix received any kind of injury on her body. Her oral statement as PW1 that she received some injuries cannot be accepted in absence of medical evidence and especially when she was not medically examined just after the occurrence. Therefore, her examination by PW9 Dr. B.R. Alawat on 23-6-1998 in-fact has no value and from the Statement of PW9 Dr. B.R. Alawat, it is also clear that she did not receive any injury on her person. Therefore, from medical point of view, it is a case of zero evidence, so far as the commission of rape is concerned. .21. According to books on Medical Jurisprudence, there are four tests which may be applied to corroborate or contradict evidence with regard to rape. They are the presence or absence of :- .(1) marks of violence about the genitals; .(2) marks of violence on the person of the prosecutrix or prisoner; .(3) stains of spermatic fluid or of blood on the clothes of the prosecutrix or prisoner; and .(4) gonorrhoea or syphilis in one or both. 22. When in the present case the above tests are applied and the evidence is found negative, the Court should not maintain the conviction of the accused-appellants of the charge of rape. 23. 22. When in the present case the above tests are applied and the evidence is found negative, the Court should not maintain the conviction of the accused-appellants of the charge of rape. 23. Thus, keeping in view the medical evidence which shows that the prosecutrix had been used to sexual intercourse, in order to accept her statement that she was sexually assaulted by accused-appellants forcibly, there should be corroboration of some material particular from some independent source and her bare statement cannot be considered sufficient to sustain the accused-appellant’s conviction. 9.24. There is also evidence that Rs. 500/-were also put by the accused-appellants in the blouse of the prosecutrix and this fact also goes to show that whatever has taken place between the pro secutrix and the accused-appellants, that has taken place with her consent and this fact further gets support from the point of view that she did not receive any injury and no report was lodged just after the occurrence. 25. For the reasons stated above, the statement of the prosecutrix about commission of rape on her by the accused-appellants forcibly, in absence of corroboration by medical evidence, cannot be accepted. Point of delay in lodging the report Ex. P/1 26. In the present case, the incident took place on 29-4-1998 and the report Ex. P/1 was lodged after one and half month on 17-6-1998. The question for, consideration is whether this delay of one and half month is fatal to the prosecution case or not. 27. Thereis evidence on-record that on the date of occurrence. PW7 Ramchandra, husband of the prosecutrix, was in the; village and he has been in the village uptp the report has been lodged. In these circumstances, lodging of the report on 17-6-1998 with regard to incident which took place on 29-4-1998 undoubtedly creates doubt on the prosecution case. 28. No doubt delay in lodging the FIR in sexual assault cannot normally damage version of the prosecutrix, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various Judgment s, but, where husband of the prosecutrix is there and report is lodged after one and half months, such type of delay would certainly be regarded as fatal to the prosecution case. 29. The inordinate delay in registration of the FIR casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story. 30. 29. The inordinate delay in registration of the FIR casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story. 30. Thus, the so-called delay of one and half months is fatal to the prosecution case and the whole prosecution case can be thrown out on this ground alone. 6.31. For the reasons stated above, the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the accused-appellants for the offence Under Sections 376 and 341, IPC are liable to be set aside and the accused-appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the said charges and their appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the accused-appellants Babulal and Devilal is allowed and the Judgment and order dated 23-9-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera are set aside and the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges for the offence under Sections 376 and 341, IPC. Since the accused-appellants are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case