JUDGMENT 1. - By this joint appeal Under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. accused appellants Moolchand and Daulat Ram have challenged judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.3.1998 delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh. By the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge while convicting accused appellant Daulat Ram Under Section 376 I.P.C. and Moolchand Under Section 376 read with 109 I.P.C. awarded each of them seven years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. Both the accused appellants were simultaneously convicted for an offence Under Section 450 I.P.C. and each of them has been awarded three years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as also the learned Public Prosecutor at length and have perused the impugned judgment alongwith the record available on the file. 3. To appreciate the rival submissions the brief resume of the facts is necessary. At 6.30 PM on 26.5.1996 at village Goluwala situated in Hanumangarh PW-2 Champa Devi, a damsel of about 14- 16 years was raped in her own residential house by Daulat Ram with the assistance of Moolchand who pressed the mouth of the prosecutrix throughout when Daulat Ram ravished her. At that time prosecutrix's father PW-1 Gopiram as also mother PW-3 Kalawati were out in the field from where PW-3 Kalawati came at about 7.00 PM to whom Champa Devi narrated the occurrence. Subsequently PW-1 Gopiram also reached the house. He too was apprised by both, mother and daughter, resulting which PW-1 Gopiram immediately took Champa Devi to the hospital for treatment and lodged a written F.I.R. Ex.P/2 at 6.30 PM on 27.5.1996. Accused appellant Moolchand was put under arrest on 31.5.1996. Accused Daulat Ram also received 23 simple and blunt injuries upon his person for which he was also admitted in the hospital. He too was apprehended on 31.5.1996 vide Ex.P/6. After usual investigation only Daulat Ram was challaned for offence Under Section 376 I.P.C. After examination of PW-1 Gopiram, PW-2 Champa Devi and PW-3 Kalwati, Moolchand was summoned Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for offence Under Sec'. 376 read with Sections 114 and 350 I.P.C. and trial proceeded afresh. 4. During trial prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited nine documents. Accused appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them, pleaded false implication and claimed acquittal. 376 read with Sections 114 and 350 I.P.C. and trial proceeded afresh. 4. During trial prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited nine documents. Accused appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them, pleaded false implication and claimed acquittal. DW-1 Lalchand and DW-2 Thakar Ram have been examined in the defence. Thereafter the learned trial court after threadbare discussion of the evidence as also relevant law has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as stated above. 5. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the F.I.R. was delayed without any explanation, therefore, the same shall not be believed. It is an admitted fact that the occurrence took place at 6.30 PM on 26.5.1996 and that Champa Devi was admitted in the hospital on the same day. However, written F.I.R. Ex.P/2 was submitted on 27.5.1996 at 6.30 PM in the police station Guluwala which was only a kilometer away from the place of occurrence. It was the bounden duty of the Station House Officer to get explanation from Gopiram as to why he could not lodge the F.I.R. immediately after the occurrence which is lacking. However, PW-1 Gopiram has stated in his cross- examination that in the hospital he gave an oral statement to the doctor and thereafter went to the police station. On the next day police personnel came in the hospital and saw injured Champa Devi receiving treatment and interrogated her and thereafter they told him to lodge the F.I.R., hence Ex.P/2 was lodged on the succeeding day. PW-6 Tarachand, Station House Officer, who received Ex.P/2 F.I.R. has denied the suggestion that the F.I.R. was recorded after commencement of the investigation. No where it has been suggested to this witness that the F.I.R. has falsely implicated the accused appellants. Therefore, the delay so caused has been explained. 6. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand , JT 2001 (5) SC 169 there was delay of three days in loading the F.I.R. in which the Apex Court in rape case was of the view that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the Court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case. The Apex Court was further of the view that it is common knowledge and also judicially noted fact that incidents like rape, more so when the perpetrator of the crime happens to be a member of the family or related therewith, involve the honour of the family and therefore there is a reluctance on the part of the family of the victim to report the matter to the police and carry the same to the court. A cool thought may precede lodging of the F.I.R. Such are the observations found to have been made by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors., JT 1996 (1) SC 298 and in Harped Singh's case (1981) SCC Cri. 208 . 7. In the matter at hand the above pronouncements of the Apex Court apply in all square because factually also the matter at hand is more or less identical to the pronouncements referred above. Therefore, the delay though has been explained, still the court is on its guard to see whether any embellishment has been made? Therefore, simply because of delay in lodging the F.I.R. the prosecution case cannot be thrown over board. The first submission is, therefore, devoid of merit. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants took me through the evidence and wanted to impress that though PW-2 Champa Devi has stated that during the rape there was enough bleeding which fell not only on her worn clothes but also on the cot upon which she has been raped. The glass bangles worn by her were also broken. It is stated that the Investigating Officer has neither found the blood stained clothes nor the blood stained cot nor has he found any broken bangles on the site. The glass bangles worn by her were also broken. It is stated that the Investigating Officer has neither found the blood stained clothes nor the blood stained cot nor has he found any broken bangles on the site. Simply because blood stained bangles and blood stained cot could not be seized by the Investigating Officer that by itself is not sufficient to discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses because PW-6 Tarachand, Station House Officer, went on the site three days after the occurrence and prepared site plan Ex.P/1 on 28.5.1996. By then the blood could not have been found on the cot nor the broken bangles would have been there. It has also not come on the record that much blood may have fallen on the cot. The possibility of exaggeration by the prosecutrix on the fact of falling blood on the cot is also not ruled out. So far as blood stained clothes are concerned, they are not only seized and sealed by the doctor himself but were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory with their seals intact and upon chemical examination vide Ex.P/10 human semen was found on Salwar, Kurta and Kachhchha of the prosecutrix. Therefore, this plea of the learned Counsel for the appellants is also not tenable. 9. It was next contended that admittedly there was litigation between the mother of PW-1 Gopiram and the mother of accused appellant Moolchand and the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. The above plea was not only taken by accused appellant Moolchand in his statement Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but also suggestions have been put in the cross-examination of PW-1 Gopiram who has admitted that between his mother and accused Moolchand a land dispute is pending yet there were no strained relations on this account. PW-3 Kalawati has also admitted in the cross-examination that it is wrong to suggest that due to land litigation with Moolchand he has been falsely implicated. Not an iota of suggestion has been made as to false implication of Dault Ram or of his having any enmity or bad blood between the family of the complainant with him. It is stated that Daulat Ram has been supporting Moolchand in his land litigation, therefore, he too has falsely implicated. That suggestion was also denied by PW-3 Kalawati. Not an iota of suggestion has been made as to false implication of Dault Ram or of his having any enmity or bad blood between the family of the complainant with him. It is stated that Daulat Ram has been supporting Moolchand in his land litigation, therefore, he too has falsely implicated. That suggestion was also denied by PW-3 Kalawati. Therefore, this plea of the learned defence counsel has rightly been turned down by the trial court. I also do not find any substance in it. 10. PW-2 Champa Devi has stated on oath that on the day of occurrence at about 6-7 in the evening when she was alone in the house Moolchand and Daulat Ram Jumped through, the barbed wire and entered her house. Moolchand pressed her mouth and Daulat Ram pulled her by hands, made her lie on the cot and raped her resulting which there was bleeding from her private parts. Thereafter, both the accused ran away. She further stated that at about 8.00 PM her mother Kalwati came in the house and she narrated the whole episode to her. At 9.00 PM her father Gopiram came. He too was apprised of the occurrence by her as also by her mother. Thereafter she was taken to hospital by her father. This witness has been cross-examined at length but nothing substantial could be elicited out of it. She could not be contradicted by her previous statements nor has she made any significant improvement tantamounting to material contradiction. Therefore, she could not be contradicted either by his police statement or by her statement during the trial prior to summoning of accused Moolchand Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and her statement had remained intact. 11. Though there is no rule of law that uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix in rape case cannot be made the basis of conviction. However, the Apex Court time and again and off late in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gianchand's case (supra) was of the view that it is now well settled that the conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances such as the report of chemical examination etc., if the same is 'found to be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with, cases involving sexual molestations. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, JT 1996 (1) SC 298 , State of Rajasthan v. N.K., JT 2000 (3) SC 643 , State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj and Anr., JT 1999 (9) SC 43 and Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Anr., JT 1992 (3) SC 270 among others can also be referred to. 12. Keeping in view the settled legal position referred above I have minutely analysed and assessed the testimony of PW-2 Champa Devi and found it consistent throughout. She has withstood the test of cross-examination. She has neither made any exaggerated version in court nor she could be contradicted by her previous statement and hence she has been held to be of sterling worth by the trial court. I also do not find any infirmity in it. 13. Testimony of PW-2 Champa Devi has been corroborated by her mother PW-3 Kalawati and her father PW-1 Gopiram to whom she narrated the occurrence immediately after their arrival in the house. Their testimony cannot be held to be hearsay because in Jetharam v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 SC 22 , version given by person on the scene of occurrence immediately after the occurrence was held admissible as a relevant fact Under Section 5 of the Evidence Act. In Ratan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 768 , statement of deceased before death that accused was standing with a gun and is firing gun at her, by proximity of time and space becoming part of same transaction was held admissible. In Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, JT 1999 (7) SC 537 , also similarly held that statement of injured, immediately after the occurrence must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which will allow fabrication. In Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, JT 1999 (7) SC 537 , also similarly held that statement of injured, immediately after the occurrence must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which will allow fabrication. In the matter at hand, occurrence took place between 6-7 PM. Smt. Kalwati came in the house at about 8.00 PM and Gopiram came in the house at about 9.00 PM and both the them were immediately appraised about the occurrence by Champa Devi upon their arrival in the house. 14. PW-3 Kalawati and PW-1 Gopiram have corroborated the testimony of PW-2 Champa Devi that Moolchand alongwith Daulat Ram jumped into the house. Moolchand pressed the mouth and Daulat Ram dragged her to the cot and there raped her. Both these witnesses have also been cross-examined at length. They too could not be contradicted in material particulars by their previous statements nor have they made any exaggerated versions. Both these witnesses have also withstood the test of cross-examination and have rightly held to be of sterling worth by the trial court which I also upheld. 15. PW-5 Dr. Satyapal Singh, who examined Champa Devi immediately after the occurrence and prepared injury report Ex.P/4, has stated that upon examination Champa Devi was found between the age of 13-14 years and that she was having four scratches on her labia minora from 0.3 to 0.5 cm size. Her vaginal mucosa was having congestion and bruises three in number of 0.5 to 0.7 cm size. Her hymen membrane was also having lateral margins. Her cervix mucosa was also congested and having tear at one spot measuring 0.3 x 0.5 x 0.2 cm. Blood oozing was present at above injury marks. Her Salwar was stained with blood. According to her she has never experienced menstrual course till date. The opinion of the doctor was that she has experienced sexual intercourse recently or a blunt object has passed in her vagina and cervix. Her vaginal swab, slides and her clothes have been taken and sealed. PW-5 Dr. Satyapal Singh has been cross-examined at length but nothing substantial could be elicited affecting his testimony adversely. The defence plea that the injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix could be caused by a blunt object, has rightly been discarded by the trial court and I also uphold the same. 16. PW-5 Dr. Satyapal Singh has been cross-examined at length but nothing substantial could be elicited affecting his testimony adversely. The defence plea that the injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix could be caused by a blunt object, has rightly been discarded by the trial court and I also uphold the same. 16. The clothes worn by the prosecutrix taken and sealed by the doctor have been sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory out of which Salwar, Kurta and Kachhcha have been found stained with human seman. 17. There is one more incriminating circumstance against Daulat Ram accused appellant because immediately after the occurrence when the incidence was disclosed to PW-1 Gopiram, father of the prosecutrix, he disclosed the same to his brothers who gave severe beating to Daulat Ram who too was examined by PW- 5 Dr. Satyapal Singh and vide injury memo Ex.P/5 23 blunt and simple injuries were found on his person. PW-2 Champa Devi in her cross-examination has stated that Daulat Ram was given beating. At that time Guddi etc. have turned up at the place of occurrence which shows that Daulat Ram has been given beating immediately after the occurrence. PW-3 Kalawati in her cross-examination has also stated that it is wrong to suggest that on the day of occurrence her husband alongwith Netram etc. called Daulat Ram and gave him beating. Daulat Ram accused appellant in his statement Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he received 23 injuries. However, he does not disclose who caused the same to him and why? Had he been given beating without sufficient reasons he should have lodged an FIR or atleast stated so before the concerned Magistrate when produced within 24 hours of the arrest. This circumstances also implicates Daulat Ram in this offence beyond reasonable doubt. 18. However, he does not disclose who caused the same to him and why? Had he been given beating without sufficient reasons he should have lodged an FIR or atleast stated so before the concerned Magistrate when produced within 24 hours of the arrest. This circumstances also implicates Daulat Ram in this offence beyond reasonable doubt. 18. It has been submitted time and again during arguments that even Investigating Officers have not found implication of Moolchand accused appellant in the crime and have given final report of no case made out against him who has been later summoned Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the trial court, therefore, it was argued that benefit of doubt be given to him, though in FIR as also during court testimony not only Champa Devi but also her mother and father have implicated Moolchand in the crime to the extent that he only pressed the mouth of the prosecutrix and helped Daulat Ram in committing rape. PW-6 Tarachand, Station House Officer, as also FW-7 Durgadutt, Circle Inspector, have stated in their statements that during investigation they have not found involvement of Moolchand in the offence. It is an admitted fact that he was a distant uncle of Champa Devi and it is the prosecution version that he did not commit any rape and only pressed the mouth of the prosecutrix. In such a situation it is Just possible that Moolchand may not have participated in the crime and he deserves benefit of doubt. 19. Consequently, appeal of Moolchand is accepted. He is acquitted of the charges. He is in custody and be released forthwith, if not required in any other matter. Offence against Daulat Ram has been found proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has been rightly held guilty by the trial court which I also uphold. The sentence awarded to him is also the minimum prescribed in the offence. I do not find any mitigating circumstances to interfere in the sentence awarded by the trial court. His appeal stands dismissed. He is in custody. He shall undergo the remaining part of sentence. A copy of this Judgment be supplied to accused appellant Daulat Ram forthwith free of cost.Appeal of 'M' allowed. Appeal of 'D' dismissed. *******