( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 24. 08. 2001 passedl by the learned Special judge for the trial of offences under Scheduled Castes/scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Secunderabad, in Sessions Case No. 242 of 2000, by which the court below convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "ipc) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution, succinctly, is that the appellant is the brother-in-law of the victim, by name Smt. Nasreen Siddique alias Bilqees, who was examined as P. W. I. The husband of P. W. I was employed in Dubai as on the date of the offence, therefore, p. W. I was residing in her matrimonial house with her in-laws. P. W. I had four male children and the appellant also had two male and two female children. The appellant was eking out his livelihood by running an auto rickshaw. be that as it may, on 26. 09. 1999 at about 5. 30 P. M. , the appellant came to the house and by that time his mother and sister were not in the house. later, he sent his children and the children of IP. W. l out of the house on the ground that he wants to sleep and there should not be any disturbance. After the children went out, the appellant locked the gate. Taking advantage of the loneliness in the house, while P. W. 1 was sitting in the verandah, the appellant; came from her behind, caught hold of her and forcibly took her in to the room. When P. W. I resisted, he beat her on the left side of her head and threatened that he would further beat her if she makes hue and cry. Thereafter, he removed her clothes and also his clothes and committed rape on her and later left the room. In the meanwhile, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of P. W. I returned home. She narrated the incident to them and expressed her desire to go to her parents house. Thereafter, he removed her clothes and also his clothes and committed rape on her and later left the room. In the meanwhile, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of P. W. I returned home. She narrated the incident to them and expressed her desire to go to her parents house. However, they requested her to excuse the appellant and not to reveal the same to any other person. P. W. I left for her parents house on the same night. On 28. 09. 1999 P. W. I went to the Deputy Commissioner of police, South Zone, Hyderabad, and submitted Ex. P1-typed complaint, and the same was forwarded to the Kalapathur Police station. The Inspector of Police, who was examined as P. W. 8, received the said complaint and registered the same as a case in crime No. 44 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 376 ipc and issued Ex. P12-first information report. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence, examined it and prepared Ex. P6-scene observation report in the presence of the mediators. Later, he examined P. Ws. 1,2 and 6 and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr. P. C. He got the scene of offence photographed, and the photographs were marked as Exs. P2 to P4. The clothes of p. W. I and the bed sheet were seized and P. W. I was sent for medical examination. The doctor, who was examined as P. W. 6, examined P. W. I on 30. 09. 1999, and issued Ex. P8-preliminary report. On the same day, P. W. 8 arrested the appellant and on the basis of Ex. P4-confession made by him, M. 0. 4-lungi of the appellant was seized in the presence of P. W. 4. M. os. l to 4 were sent to the forensic science laboratory, which submitted Ex. P10 report. Basing on the FSL report, P. W. 6 opined that it cannot be concluded that there was any recent sexual intercourse. The appellant was sent for potency test and the doctor, who was examined as P. W. 7, issued ex. P11 certificate opining that the appelllant is capable to perform sexual act. Later, P. W. 10 took up further investigation from P. W. 8 and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the appellant. The appellant was sent for potency test and the doctor, who was examined as P. W. 7, issued ex. P11 certificate opining that the appelllant is capable to perform sexual act. Later, P. W. 10 took up further investigation from P. W. 8 and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the appellant. ( 3 ) THE learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and numbered the case as P. R. C. No. 8 off 2000 and later committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, who in turn made over the same to the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila)at Nampally, Hyderabad. ( 4 ) THE learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The gravamen of the charge is as under: " That the appellant, being the older brother of the husband of Smtnasireen Siddique alias Bilqees, on or about the 26th day of September 1999 at about 5. 00 P. M. , in the absence of the inmates of the house, committed rape on smt. Nasreen Siddique alias Bilquees, in the house bearing door No. 19-2-137/8/72, Bilalnagar, Kalapathar, Hyderabad and thereby he has committed an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. " ( 5 ) TO substantiate its case, the prosecution got examined P. Ws. l to 10 and marked Exs. Pl to P12 and M. Os. l to 4. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. On an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned additional Public Prosecutor. ( 6 ) THE main contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant are three fold. The first contention is that the abnormal delay in lodging complaint from 26. 09. 1999 to 29. 09. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned additional Public Prosecutor. ( 6 ) THE main contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant are three fold. The first contention is that the abnormal delay in lodging complaint from 26. 09. 1999 to 29. 09. 1999 was not explained by the prosecution; the second one is that the entire case rests on the evidence of victim-P. W. l, but her evidence is totally falsified by the medical evidence; and third one is that P. W. I is a riffraff and as the appellant, who is none other than her brother-in-law, chastised her, she foisted this case against him alleging that he committed rape on her. Hence, the learned counsel submits that in view of the above circumstances, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the appellant is not entitled for acquittal. ( 7 ) IT is true that the alleged offence took place at 5. 30 P. M. , on 26. 09. 1999, whereas the first information report was registered at 1. 00 P. M. , on 29. 09. 1999. Thus, there is a gap of about 68 hours from the time of the offence to the registration of crime. It is the specific case of P. W. I that she left for her parents house from matrimonial house, immediately after the incident. But it is not known as to why she did not lodge any complaint either on 26th, 27th, 28th or in the morning of 29th. Of course it is settled legal proposition that in cases of offences against women, the delay may not play a vital role, and similarly, the solitary testimony of the victim is sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of the offence but the said principle can foe applied if only the other evidence adduced by the prosecution establishes that the accused has committed the said offence. In the instant case, the prosecution has not explained the delay properly, and when the evidence of the doctor and other circumstances are taken into consideration, this court is of the view that the said delay would definitely vitiate the case of the prosecution. In the instant case, the prosecution has not explained the delay properly, and when the evidence of the doctor and other circumstances are taken into consideration, this court is of the view that the said delay would definitely vitiate the case of the prosecution. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to Ex. P10 report of the forensic science laboratory, the Assistant Director of the Laboratory examined M. Os. l to 6 and opined that semen and spermatozoa are not detected in those items. Admittedly, M. Os. l to 3 are pyjama and salwar belonging to p. W. 1, which were seized on 30. 09. 1999. It is not in dispute that p. W. 1 was wearing those clothes at the time of the offence. May be it is true that P. W. I was examined for the first time by the doctor only on 30. 09. 1999 i. e, after a gap of about four days and it is not possible for the doctor, to hold as to whether there was recent sexual intercourse or not. But the experts in the forensic science laboratory, on examination of M. Os. l to 3, can definitely come to the conclusion as to whether there is any semen and spermatozoa. The report of the laboratory is to the effect that the semen or spermatozoa are not detected in any of the items sent to it. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the appellant, as P. W. 1 was moving freely with him, he chastised her and asked her not to move freely, and therefore, she foisted this case against] him. The said contention appears to be true. Of course, it may also be noted that no respectable woman would say that she has been sexually assaulted, without there being the said assault. But that alone is not the criteria to find the guilt of the accused. The other circumstances, as discussed above, also shall be in line with the case of the prosecution. Then only the courts can hold that the accused is responsible for the offence alleged. As the other circumstances do not tally with the case of the prosecution, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and the Court below erred in convicting the appellanl. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. As the other circumstances do not tally with the case of the prosecution, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and the Court below erred in convicting the appellanl. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge for the trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, in S. C. No. 242 of 2000, vide judgment dated 24. 08. 2001.