L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant herein was tried for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case no. 18 of 1999 on the file of the Assistant sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Rangareddy district. The learned Assistant Sessions judge by his judgment dated 28-11-2002 convicted him for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Hence this appeal. ( 2 ) THE case as presented by the prosecution was that the accused and PW. 1 were in love with each other. Some differences arose between them thereafter. On 30. 10. 1997 her father (PW. 2) and her mother went to the fields for working and PW. 1 was alone in the house. At about 1-45 p. m. when she was sitting infront of her house, the accused came there and asked her as to why she was not talking to him. Thereafter, he held her tuft of hair, dragged her inside the house and committed rape on her. PW. 1 raised hue and cry. Then the accused ran away. PW. 4, who is the son of her uncle PW. 3, came there within five minutes and she revealed the matter to him. At about 7 p. m. , her parents came and she revealed the matter to them also. The incident later on was informed to pw. 3 and a caste elder PW. 6, who in turn took the same to the Sarpanch of the village. It was only the next day i. e. , on 31. 10. 1997 the Sarpanch had informed PW. 2 and his wife that his efforts are not yielding any result and they may report the matter to the police. It was in this context Ex. P1 complaint came to be made on 2. 11. 1997. ( 3 ) ON receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer PW. 8 sent PW. l for medical examination. PW. 1 was examined by PW. 9 and the medical certificate being ex. P8 was issued. Investigation was conducted and ultimately charge-sheet was filed. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 9 and marked Ex. P-1 to ex. P-8 and M. Os. 1 to 3. For the defence ex. D-1 to Ex-D9 were marked. PW. 1 was examined by PW. 9 and the medical certificate being ex. P8 was issued. Investigation was conducted and ultimately charge-sheet was filed. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 9 and marked Ex. P-1 to ex. P-8 and M. Os. 1 to 3. For the defence ex. D-1 to Ex-D9 were marked. ( 4 ) PW. 1 is the complainant. PW. 2 is her father, PW. 3 is her uncle, PW. 4 is the son of PW. 3, PWs. 5 and 7 are the panch witnesses. PW. 6 is a caste-elder of the village, PW. 8 is the Investigating Officer and PW. 9 is the lady Medical Officer. ( 5 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there are any amount of contradictions in the version of various witnesses examined by the prosecution. He submits that this case was foisted against the appellant only as a counter-blast to the complaint submitted by him against PW. 4 which was registered as crime No. 169 of 1997 under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that PW. 1 has addressed as many as six letters marked as Ex. D-3 to Ex. D-8 to the appellant-accused subsequent to the incident and a perusal of the same would reveal that a false case was foisted against the appellant and she (PW. l) had to give statements as per the directions of the members of her family. He has also pointed-out to the various material contradictions between the evidence of PW. 1 on the one hand and PW. 4 on the other. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was an enormous delay of three days in submitting the complaint to the police and the same was availed to meditate upon to implicate the appellant-accused. ( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that PW. 1 who is the victim of the offence has categorically deposed in her evidence before the trial court as to the manner in which the offence came to be committed. He submits that the documents marked as Ex. D3 to Ex. D8 are not relevant since they pertain to the period subsequent to the commission of the offence. 1 who is the victim of the offence has categorically deposed in her evidence before the trial court as to the manner in which the offence came to be committed. He submits that the documents marked as Ex. D3 to Ex. D8 are not relevant since they pertain to the period subsequent to the commission of the offence. The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the medical evidence has supported the version of the prosecution and therefore, the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC. He submits that the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence against the appellant. He submits that the delay in lodging the complaint was properly explained inasmuch as PW. l and her family members have been making efforts to vindicate their rights. ( 7 ) PW. 1, the victim in her evidence has stated that on 30. 10. 1997 when she was alone at her house at around 1-30 p. m. , the accused came there and asked her as to why she was not talking to him and that even while stating so, he had dragged her into the house and committed rape on her. The evidence on record discloses that PW. 1 and the accused were in love with each other. It is true that the said fact itself does not justify the commission of offence of rape, if in fact, it had taken place. ( 8 ) THE trend of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the cases arising under Section 376 of the Indian Penal code is that, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case even the version of the victim can constitute the basis for conviction. In the present case however, the version presented by PW. 1 is not consistent. It is a peculiar case where, if her evidence upto the stage of her complaint is taken, it almost convinces the court about the commission of offence. However her subsequent conduct as evident from the letters, admittedly written by her to the appellant in Ex. D-3 to Ex. D-8 discloses that what she complained of is not correct. In her cross-examination she has categorically admitted that even after the incident, they talked to each other and wrote letters to each other. However her subsequent conduct as evident from the letters, admittedly written by her to the appellant in Ex. D-3 to Ex. D-8 discloses that what she complained of is not correct. In her cross-examination she has categorically admitted that even after the incident, they talked to each other and wrote letters to each other. In her crossexamination, she stated as under:"after the incident of rape myself and accused talked to each other and we wrote letters to each other. . . . . . . . . I addressed Ex. D-3 to Ex. D-8 after the accused was released on bail in this case. " ( 9 ) HERE again, it needs to be noted that mere existence of cordial relations at a later stage may not water down the gravity of offence. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, the purport of these letters, Ex. D-3 to Ex. D-8 suggests that the complaint made by her (PW. 1) was not genuine. For example in Ex. D-5 letter after making initial address in the typical language in which a girl in love with a boy does, she wrote as under:"dear Vardhan, You are feeling that I have got no love on you and I filed a case against you. How you have believed? Why you have not addressed as lively, it s OK. I am very happy as you wrote a letter though you have no time to spare. Are you not angry on me? Have you done any mistake on that? all have forced me to say like that. I did not know what I told and how I went there. " ( 11 ) IN the concluding portion of Ex. D-8 letter, she wrote as under:"we both have met even after your release from the jail. Why are you not talking now? you are only the responsible person for my present acts" ( 12 ) IN Ex-D-5 which is an elaborate letter, there are several such reference. In ex. D-5 at one stage, PW. l says that she is repenting for what she has done. The purport of all these letters is that the accused and pw1 were in love with each other and the complaint came to be made on account of the pressure exerted on PW. l by some of her family members. ( 13 ) THERE is another important factor which needs to be taken into consideration. PW. The purport of all these letters is that the accused and pw1 were in love with each other and the complaint came to be made on account of the pressure exerted on PW. l by some of her family members. ( 13 ) THERE is another important factor which needs to be taken into consideration. PW. l in her chief-examination stated that within five minutes after the incident, pw. 4 who is the son of her uncle came to the spot and by that time the accused ran away. PW. 4 however, in his chief-examination stated that by the time he went to the spot, the accused was there and that he caught hold of the accused and enquired him as to what had happened. It was his further case that the accused pushed him to the ground and while running away he threatened him (PW. 4) that if the incident is revealed to any one, he would kill him. He stated that he did not try to chase and catch him. In his cross- examination, he stated that himself and the accused scuffled for about five minutes and that in the meanwhile three women came to the spot. But those three women were not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. It is therefore, evident that PW. 4 has made substantial improvements over the version of PW. l as to his presence. On behalf of the appellant-accused it was elicited from PW. 8 the investigating Officer as well as PW. 3 the father of PW. 4 and the uncle of PW. 1 that on 30. 10. 1997 i. e. , on the same day of the alleged incident at about 1 p. m. , PW. 4 attacked the accused and a complaint was given on 1. 11. 1997 by the accused against pw. 4 and the same was registered as a case crime No. 169 of 1997 under Section 324 ipc and it was only thereafter the complaint in the present case came to be filed. ( 14 ) COMING to the medical evidence, PW. 9 the lady Medical Officer in her evidence has stated that she cannot give a definite opinion as to the commission of rape on PW. 1 in view of the lapse of time as well as her further findings on examination of PW. 1. The lady Medical Officer PW. ( 14 ) COMING to the medical evidence, PW. 9 the lady Medical Officer in her evidence has stated that she cannot give a definite opinion as to the commission of rape on PW. 1 in view of the lapse of time as well as her further findings on examination of PW. 1. The lady Medical Officer PW. 9 also has categorically stated in her evidence that as per the report of the Forensic Science laboratory, no spermatozoa and semen of the accused were detected on the body, private parts or clothes of PW. 1. Therefore, the medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. ( 15 ) THE incident is said to have taken place on the noon of 30. 10. 1997. The complaint was filed three days thereafter i. e. , on 3. 11. 1997. It is true that in the submission of the complaint in a case of rape, there are bound to be delays and the court shall give an amount of latitude in dealing with such delays. Viewed from that angle, the lapse of three days cannot be said to be that long so as to vitiate the entire case of the prosecution. However, the fact that on the same day just prior to the said incident, pw. 4 had attacked the accused and a complaint in that regard was filed before the same police station on 1. 11. 1997 becomes relevant. If this fact is super-imposed with the other contradictions of PW. 4, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that it is PW. 4 who is the mastermind in submitting the complaint against the accused virtually becomes acceptable. The contents of the letters Ex. D-3 to Ex. D-8 lends support to this version. Therefore, if all these factors referred to above are taken into consideration, it is evident that PW. 1, was made to speak falsehood by her family members particularly pw. 4. In fact, she stated so in her letters. PW. 4 had a grouse against the appellant-accused, inasmuch as the latter submitted a complaint against him alleging the offence under Section 324 IPC. It is in this background that the delay in submission of the complaint becomes significant and it can be said that the same was availed to invent facts to suit the convenience. PW. 4 had a grouse against the appellant-accused, inasmuch as the latter submitted a complaint against him alleging the offence under Section 324 IPC. It is in this background that the delay in submission of the complaint becomes significant and it can be said that the same was availed to invent facts to suit the convenience. Hence, this court is convinced that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had committed rape on PW1. ( 16 ) IN the result, the Criminal Appeal is, allowed, and the conviction and sentence against the appellant by the learned Assistant sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Rangareddy district by his judgment dated 28-11-2002 in sessions Case No. 18 of 1999 is hereby set aside. Fine amount if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant. The appellant shall be set at liberty forth-with if he is not required in any other case.