JUDGMENT K. Sreehar Rao, J.—The case of the prosecution that the victim-P.W.6 on 15-8-1997 come to Chikkamagalur at 2.30 p.m. P.W.6 was waiting for the bus to go to her village. A.1 and A.2 who are strangers to P.W.6, invited P.W.6 to have tea with them. P.W.6 chides the accused for their hidden intentions go and sit in some other place. Some time after, the accused persons come in an auto. P.W.6 was forcibly dragged into the auto. Her mouth is gagged and taken near the stream at Dubai nagar. The accused forcibly committed gang rape, one after another and threatened her that she would be killed if she were to given a complaint to the police, thereafter decamped the scene. P.W.6 was terribly scared and was fully tired, she came toddling to the bus stand and reached her village. P.W.6 did not inform the incident to anybody and being exhausted slept that night. On the next day, at 6 p.m. P.W.6 informs her sister Umadevi (P.W.1). The father of P.W.2 was working at Hospet village, he comes late in the night on 16-8-1997. P.W.1 informs the incident. FIR is lodged on 17-8-1997. P.W.6 gives the description of the accused persons as the persons with brown colour and she would be able to identify them, if she were to see them again. 2. In the evidence, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 say that in Chikamagalur before giving complaint they were standing at the bus stand, the accused came on a bicycle, stopped near P.W.6. P.W.6 by gestures inform P.W.1 and 2 that he is the accused who committed rape. P.W.2 made attempts to apprehend the accused. But he fled away. P.W.1 and 2 returned home, after delibarations gave complaint on the next day. The I.O. has recorded the further statement of P.W.6 marked at Ex. D.1. In the material portions of the statement P.W.6 has stated on 16-8-1997 in the evening P.W.6 informs the incident to her sister-P.W.1 and later on father also come to know of the incident. P.W.2 tells P.W.6 that they could give complaint to the police only after they apprehend the accused and also they make attempts for apprehending the accused. The father was reluctant to give complaint until they trace the accused. However, P.W.6 insists that complaint is to be given. Hence on 17-8-1997 complaint is lodged. On 19-8-1997 the accused persons have been apprehended. The father was reluctant to give complaint until they trace the accused. However, P.W.6 insists that complaint is to be given. Hence on 17-8-1997 complaint is lodged. On 19-8-1997 the accused persons have been apprehended. P.W.6 identifies the accused in the P.S. 3. The F.S.L report discloses that the clothing worn by the victim - P.W.6 has seminal stains. In the vaginal smear spermatozoa was not detected. 4. P.W.6, in the evidence before the Court states that after the incident when she comes to the bus stand she finds her brother and sister. She was scared and did not inform the incident to them. She comes to the village, mother was not in the house. The rather was not in the house. On the next day evening she informs P.W.1 and thereafter P.W.2 is informed. P.W.6 has taken to Chikkamagalur hospital for treatment, since she feels feverish. P.W.6 says that she did not inform the act of rape to the hospital authorities. 5. Most of the material witnesses namely P. Ws.1,2, and P.W.6 have stated in the evidence the accused coming on a bicycle stopped at P.W.6 and stand at her. An attempt was made by P.W.2 to apprehend the accused, the said facts do not find a place in the FIR. So also P.W.6 being treated in a private nursing home before lodging the complaint is not mentioned in the FIR. 6. The further statement of P.W.6 recorded by the I.O. is highly doubtful fact to be believed. The contents of the further statement has irreversibly damages the case of the prosecution. The wisdom of recording such a statement on the part of the I.O. is questionable and it badly reflects on his integrity. If the I.O. was not convinced about the true version, he need not have filed a positive final report against the accused persons recommending trial. But strangely, the I.O. makes out a case against the accused for an offence of gang rape, at the same time records a material in the charge sheet by way of further statement of P.W.6 which goes terribly against the prosecution version. 7. There is inordinatedelay in lodging the FIR. The conduct of P.W.6 in not revelaing the fact of rape to her sister immediately at the bus stand or at the house on the same day renders her veracity vulnerable. 7. There is inordinatedelay in lodging the FIR. The conduct of P.W.6 in not revelaing the fact of rape to her sister immediately at the bus stand or at the house on the same day renders her veracity vulnerable. There are serious discrepancies between the FIR and the evidence. 8. The FIR contains only a cryptic clue regarding the accused. The evidence of the I.O. does not disclose on what basis the case against A.1 abates. P.W.6 only states that she identified the accused in the P.S. after apprehension. But no sufficient clues were given to the police for apprehension. The accused are obviously strangers. A.1 died during the pendency of the trial. Accordingly the accused is acquitted. 9. In view of the above discrepancies noted the order of conviction recorded is bad in law, the same is set aside. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.