Judgment S.S.Grewal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.2.1988 passed by Shri P.C. Singal, Additional Sessions Judge in Case No. 125/23 or 1987, under Section 376 I.P.C. vide which he had convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused for three years rigourous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The prosecution story, as given by the prosecutrix Jaswinder Kaur PW4 in the Court, is that she is the daughter of Ram Kishan PW 10 and resides with her parents in Kacha Machhiwara. The accused is known to her as he is their neighbour. About 8-1/2 months back, at about 7.30 P.M. (statement recorded on 16.11.1987 and the occurrence took place on 27.2.1987) she had gone to the field of Anokh Singh to answer the call of nature. She was sitting in the water course (khal) which is by the side of the field of Anokh Singh. After answering the call of nature, she got up and was tying the string of her salwar. At that time, the accused came there from her back side. She was wearing a shawl on her head. Firstly, the accused caught hold of that shawl and then her right arm from her back side. She shouted the name of her father for her help. On this, the accused put her shawl in her mouth and caught hold of her from her waist and dragged her to the nearby wheat field. She gave a teeth bite on the hand of the accused when he put the shawl in her mouth. Then he laid her on the ground with her fact upwards and caught her both hands and performed sexual intercourse with her forcibly. At that time, she resisted it, but could not succeed. During that process she received injuries on her legs, arms and back and felt pain. She told the accused that she would tell about the incident to her father and on it, he thretened to get murdered her father and brothers in case she disclosed it to anybody. The accused then went away and she came back to her house. She was weeping when she came back to her house. On the way back, her father met her in the street. The accused then went away and she came back to her house. She was weeping when she came back to her house. On the way back, her father met her in the street. He enquired from her as to what was the matter and in reply she told him that she would tell it to her mother after reaching the house. Her mother had already gone to village Suda Majra to meet her (PW) elder sister and she (mother) came back on the next day in the evening. On her arrival, she told the incident to her. Her mother told it to her father and then her father enquired from her (PW) as to whether it was true whatever was told to him by her mother and she replied to him in the affirmative. 3. On the third day of the incident, her father and two brothers were taken away by the police. On the third day of the arrest of her father and brothers she was medically examined (medical examination done on 3.3.1987). After her medical examination, on the same day, the police came to her house and recorded her statement, Ex.PD regarding the occurrence. On the statement Ex.PD of the prosecutrix Jaswinder Kaur, the present case was registered and investigated. During investigation, the accused was arrested and got medically examined. After the completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned in the Court under Section 376 I.P.C. for commitment purposes. 4. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court and the case was committed by learned Magistrate to the Court of Sessions. A charge against the accused under Section 376 I.P.C. was framed. 5. In support of its version, the prosecution examined Dr. Gurmit Singh Medical Officer, PHU Machhiwara, PW1; Dr. Ashok Kumar Khullar, Medical Officer, Chamkaur Sahib, PW2; Ratan Singh, Patwari Halqa Machhiwara Kalan PW3; Jaswinder Kaur alias Manjit Kaur, Prosecutrix PW4; Constable Teja Singh PW5; HC Sadhu Singh PW6; Jeeto wife of Gholu Ram alias Ram Kishan PW7; Amarjit Kaur ANM PW8; ASI Sham Lal PW9; Gholu Ram alias Ram Kishan PW10; and SI Manmohan Singh PW 11 and closed the evidence. When, examined tinder Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded as under "I am a Building Contractor. Ram Kishan alias Gholu Ram PW and his sons worked with me as Labourer. Ram Kishan aforesaid had taken Rs. When, examined tinder Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded as under "I am a Building Contractor. Ram Kishan alias Gholu Ram PW and his sons worked with me as Labourer. Ram Kishan aforesaid had taken Rs. 1000/- as loan from me on the marriage of his son after three or four months prior to this alleged incident. After taking the loan, he neither returned the money nor worked with me. He did not return the money inspite of my repeated demands. My house and that of Ram Kishan adjoin. On 1.3.1987, in the morning, a gathering was convened in front of our houses regarding the recovery of that loan, Ram Kishan PW brought his own persons and I also brought my own persons. The gathering included Harbhajan Singh, Sarpanch, Dhanna Ram Panch and other persons. When I demanded the return of the loan, Ram Kishan abused me. Then we exchanged hot words. Then Ram Kishan PW and his sons opened attack on me, my nephew Harbhajan Singh and my brother-in-law Bahadar Singh. We all three were injured with kirpan. Harbhajan Singh Sarpanch tried to intervene and he also received injuries at that time. On the same day, a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Ram Kishan PW and I was admitted in the CMC Hospital, Ludhiana, for the treatment of my injuries. For the first two days, after this incident, the brothers of Ram Kishan PW appealed us for compromise to which we did not agree. Then on 3.3.1987 they got this false case registered against me as a counterblast to the case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code." Main grounds of appeal are that the learned Court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The age of prosecutrix has not been conclusively determined to show that she was less than 16 years of age at the time of occurrence. Delay in recording the FIR is not only the result of deliberations but also proved attempt to ante-time and ante-date the alleged occurence, to precede it from another episode, complained by the appellant against the family members of the prosecutrix. Delay in recording the FIR is not only the result of deliberations but also proved attempt to ante-time and ante-date the alleged occurence, to precede it from another episode, complained by the appellant against the family members of the prosecutrix. In fact this case has been set up as a case to counter blast and to fight back the grievance of the appellant who has lodged the FIR before registration of this case. Appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the alleged occurrence has taken place on 27.2.1987 between 7.30 and 8.00 P.M. in the wheat field of Anokh Singh DW3. It is alleged in the statement of the prosecutrix PW4 that when rape was committed her underwear, shirt and salwar was smeared with blood. While she was coming home weeping and her father met her on the way, he required why was she weeping? She told him that he will tell her mother. But when she reached home, her mother had already gone to meet her elder daughter. So she did not tell anything to her father. She has given her age to the doctor as 13 years. A girl of 13 years cannot be that wise not to narrate such incident to her father. When the minor daughter aged about 12/13 years is weeping, and her clothes were smeared with blood, father could have guessed the same. Next day her mother returned. The incident was narrated by the prosecutrix to her mother and she narrated it to her husband. Father and mother did not go to lodge the report to police instead they waited. This version is also wrong as her mother must have already left for village Sudamajra before 7.00 P.M. to meet her elder daughter. After incident had been narrated, her mother and father took her to police station and hospital after four days. The case has been lodged after a delay of four days to counterblast the case of the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. When the police arrested the prosecutrixs father and brothers, she did not narrate about this incident of rape to the police. 8. The prosecutrix is also not minor. The case has been lodged after a delay of four days to counterblast the case of the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. When the police arrested the prosecutrixs father and brothers, she did not narrate about this incident of rape to the police. 8. The prosecutrix is also not minor. Her date of birth is proved by DW-4, Gurdial Singh, vide Ex.PD, a school certificate, in which the date of birth of the prosecutrix is recorded as 24.05.1969. The proecution has produced, Ex.PW8/B, which is issued in the name of Baljit where date of birth was recorded as 15.04.1971. But in the statement of prosecutrix she has not alleged that she is also known in Ex.PD as Baljit Kaur. So, the name of Baljit Kaur has been introduced to prove wrong date of birth. The prosecutrix has given her age as 13 years to the doctor. So, she cannot be conclusively said to be minor. 9. The prosecutrix and her mother did not approach the police for four days but went to medical officer and got her examined at 4.30 p.m. on 03.03.1987 at their own instance without police help. Police came home and recorded the statements, on the basis of which FIR was recorded at 9.20 P.M. It reached the Ilaqa Magistrate on 04.03.1987 at 2.50 A.M. So there is clear delay of four days which stands unexplained. 10. There is no doubt that a meeting in the house of Ram Kishan@ Gholu Ram took place on 1.3.1987 at 8 AOMO. Accused have brought definite evidence that this meeting was regarding the recovery of money for Gholu Ram and his son. Gholu Ram has also admitted that there was some dispute regarding payment to him by accused who is a contractor. Accused claimed return of advance made by him while Gohlu Ram asked for payment for the labour done by him. Hot words were exchanged. Gholu Ram and his sons brought kirpans from home and injuries were caused to accused and his relations. A case under Section 307 IPC was registered against Gholu Ram and his son. They were arrested by the police. DW-1 Harbhajan Singh, Sarpanch, and DW-2 Dhanna Ram Panch, present at that time, have clearly stated that the meeting was regarding money matter. A case under Section 307 IPC was registered against Gholu Ram and his son. They were arrested by the police. DW-1 Harbhajan Singh, Sarpanch, and DW-2 Dhanna Ram Panch, present at that time, have clearly stated that the meeting was regarding money matter. Harbhajan Singh Sarpanch and Dhanna Ram, Panch, were called by Gholu Ram as there was money dispute with the accused. Gholu Ram worked as a labourer with accused and there was some dispute regarding the return of money advanced by accused and payment of labour money to Gholu Ram by accused. The version that the meeting was regarding compromise for the alleged rape, was not put to DW-1 and DW-2 by the prosecution. Thus, the case as clearly made up story to counterblast the case of the accused under Section 307 IPC. So appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 11. Learned counsel for the State has argued that it is the case of rape of minor girl and statement of prosecutrix could not be disbelieved or suspected. Rape casts aspersions on the character of the girl and the family. It is a matter of common knowledge that a girl or a woman in the tradition bound non permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that an incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the society or being looked down by the society, by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbourers. She would face that risk of tossing the love and respect. If she is unmarried she would apprehend, it would be difficult to secure a suitable or respectable match in a good family. In view of these factors, the victims and their relatives, are not to keen to bring the culprit to book. So in the face of these factors when the crime is brought to light, there is an in-built assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. In view of these factors, the victims and their relatives, are not to keen to bring the culprit to book. So in the face of these factors when the crime is brought to light, there is an in-built assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. He also referred to Ram Kanwar @ Ram Kumar v. The State of Haryana, 1988 (3) All India Criminal Law Reporter, 380, in which it has been held as under : "The principle of delay will not apply as and when the question of the virtue and honour of a girl is involved, the anxiety of parents is not to give publicity to the matter but to seek redress through the interevention of the Bradri and the Panchiyat without going to the police station." He has also referred to State of Rajasthan v. Noore Khan, 2000 (2) All India Criminal Law Reporter, 438, especially para 15, in which it has been observed as under : "......a mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground by itself for throwing the entire prosecution case overboard. The Court has to seek an explanation for delay and test the truthfulness and plausibility of reason assigned. If the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court it cannot be counted against the prosecution." Learned counsel for the State also pointed out that age of the prosecutrix has been proved by Ex.PW8/B as being 14.05.1971 and she is minor. While appearing as PW-4, she was narrated the occurrence in detail PW-7, Jeeto, her mother, has also supported the prosecutrix and she has clearly stated that incident was told to her by the prosecutrix. She returned home after meeing to her elder daughter from village Suda. Defence evidence and version casts no doubt on prosecution version, so it should be believed and the appeal be dismissed. 12. Dr. Gurmit Singh, PW-1 has clearly stated that the prosecutrix has given her age as 13 years. Ex.PW8/B wherein name of Baljit Kaur is recorded and her date of birth has been given as 15.04.1971. The prosecutrix while appearing as PW-4 admitted the she has not told the police at the time of recording of her statement Ex.PD that she was also known as Baljit Kaur. So how she can be taken as Baljit Kaur. Ex.PW8/B wherein name of Baljit Kaur is recorded and her date of birth has been given as 15.04.1971. The prosecutrix while appearing as PW-4 admitted the she has not told the police at the time of recording of her statement Ex.PD that she was also known as Baljit Kaur. So how she can be taken as Baljit Kaur. Smt. Jeeto, mother of the prosecutrix, appearing as PW-7, has stated that Jaswinder kaur, PW now present in the court is the youngest one. DW-4 has proved on record the admission from dated 26.06.1975 on the basis of which an entry was made at serial No. 685 dated 24.06.1975 in the Admission register of the school. This admission form shows, her date of birth as 24.05.1969. No doubt, school certificate is not a reliable evidence regarding date of birth. But otherwise also, there was no reliable evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix. It has also come in evidence that on 27.02.1987, after the alleged occurrence when prosecutrix was returning home, her father met her when she was weeping. She had also stated that her clothes were also smeared with blood. On enquiry by her father, as to why she was weeping, she told him that she would tell her mother at home about the incident. She reached home : Her mother was not present. She had gone to village Suda to meet her elder daughter. So, she did not narrate the incident to her father then. A girl of 12/13 years cannot be so wise to conceal such an incident from her father. So she must be intelligent and having common sense. Father must have noticed blood stains on her clothes. This shows that a clear prosecution version is not coming forward. 13. The prosecutrix, PW-4, has stated that when her father and brothers were arrested by the police on a complaint by the accused under Section 307 IPC, she did not narrate the incident of rape to the police which was must and necessary. The version given by the accused about the meeting at the home of Gholu Ram on 1.3.1987 at about 8.00 a.m. has been duly supported by DW-1 and DW-2 stating that there was only a money dispute between the accused and the prosecutrixs father and brother. The prosecutrixs father and brother caused kirpan injuries to the accused and his relations. The version given by the accused about the meeting at the home of Gholu Ram on 1.3.1987 at about 8.00 a.m. has been duly supported by DW-1 and DW-2 stating that there was only a money dispute between the accused and the prosecutrixs father and brother. The prosecutrixs father and brother caused kirpan injuries to the accused and his relations. A case under Section 307 IPC was registered against them. The prosecutrix was got medically examined at their own and not on the police request. On receipt of medical report, police came to the house of the prosecutrix and recorded her statement Ex.PD and also investigated the case. Smt. Jeeto, PW-7, is the mother of the prosecutrix . She has stated in the cross-exmination that her daughter had told her details of the incident which she had narrated in the Court but she was confronted with the statement Ex.DA where no detail of incident has been mentioned which she, mentioned in the Court to have been told by her daughter Jaswinder Kaur. So PW-7 has not given any detail of the incident to the police which was important had prosecutrix informed her. 14. Defence evidence totally destroys the prosecution version. DW-1 and DW-2 clearly admitted that there was a meeting on 1.3.1987 at the house of the prosecutrixs father at 8.00 A.M. Meeting was regarding the dispute I of money between the prosecutrixs father and the accused contractor regarding the work done by the proecutrix father and brother. The version of rape was not put to Sarpanch or Panch. DW-3, Anokh Singh, has clearly stated that on 27.02.1987 and 28.02.1987 he was present in his field. On 27.2.1987 he was present in his field from 10 A.M. to 8.30 P.M. At that time, the field was under wheat crop and the height of wheat crop was upto level of knee. On that day, he neither saw the accused nor the daughter of Gholu Ram in his field. His statement demolishes the prosecution version totally. So the prosecution has clearly failed to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 15. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/accused is accepted. His conviction under section 376 I.P.C. and sentence of rigourous imprisonment for a period of three years and payment of fine of Rs. So the prosecution has clearly failed to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 15. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/accused is accepted. His conviction under section 376 I.P.C. and sentence of rigourous imprisonment for a period of three years and payment of fine of Rs. 2500/-, and in default of payment of fine further to undergo rigourous imprisonment for six months, is set aside. The accused is acquitted.