JUDGMENT : 1. Accused 1, 2 and 4 in Sessions Case No. 284 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandigama, are the appellants. The first appellant/A-1 was tried for the offence punishable under Section 376 Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”), and A-2 to A-7 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. On an analysis of the entire evidence let in by the prosecution, while holding that A-3 and A-5 to A-7 are not guilty of the above offence, however, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found A-1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Similarly, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found A-2 and A-4 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge further directed that out of the fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by A-1, an amount of Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid to P.W. 1, towards compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 2. The substance of the charges framed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge against the accused is as follows: “Firstly that A-1 on or about 23rd day of January, 1999 at mid night, at his house situated at Vellanki, caught hold of P.W. 1, Gundra Kumari, when she came out of the house and went towards hayrick for urinals, and gagged her mouth with cloth and committed rape on her against her will and consent and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Secondly, that A-2 to A-7 at Penugachiprolu village, deceived Gundra Kumari, Gundra Venkataratnam and Gundra Ramulamma committed criminal breach of agreement in performing the marriage of A-1 with P.W. 1 Gundra Kumari and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC.” 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows. P.W. 1 is the victim and her mother is P.W. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows. P.W. 1 is the victim and her mother is P.W. 2. A-1, A-4 and A-6 are the sons of A-2 A-3, A-5 and A-7 are the daughters-in-law of A-2 and A-3, and they are all living jointly. P.W. 1 used to go to the house of the accused situated at Vellanki village for doing coolie work. While so, on 23-1-1999, P.W. 1 went to the house of the accused to collect the balance coolie amount and A-2 told her that he will pay the same on the next day. Therefore, P.W. 1 stayed in the house of the accused for that day, and at about 12 to 12.30 in the mid night when P.W. 1 came out of the house for urinals A-1 came behind her with a towel and tied her hands with the said towel. When she tried to raise alarm, A-1 put his banian into her mouth and committed rape. Immediately thereafter P.W. 1 informed about the same to A-2 to A-7. Pursuant to which, they promised to perform her marriage with A-1. Thereafter, they took P.W. 1 to her parents and informed about the incident to them and requested them not to disclose the said incident to anybody. Subsequently, when A-2 to A-7 intended to perform the marriage of A-1 with another girl, P.Ws. 1 and 2 raised a dispute before one P. Prabhakar Rao, a practicing advocate. As the mediation was not fruitful, P.Ws. 1 and 2 lodged a report with the police. As the police failed to initiate any action, P.W. 1 filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First class, Jaggaiahpet, and the same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on receipt of the said report, the sub-inspector of police registered the same as case in Crime No. 59 of 1999 on 2-7-1999 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 420 IPC and issued express FIR to all the concerned. On 4-8-1999 P.W. 9 examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 7 and recorded their statements. Later he visited the scene of offence, i.e. the house of A-1 and prepared Ex. P-8 rough sketch. P.W. 9 later visited the house of P.W. 1 and prepared another rough sketch, Ex. P-9. Thereafter, P.W. 1 was sent to the Government hospital, Jaggaiahpet for medical examination. 1 to 4 and 7 and recorded their statements. Later he visited the scene of offence, i.e. the house of A-1 and prepared Ex. P-8 rough sketch. P.W. 9 later visited the house of P.W. 1 and prepared another rough sketch, Ex. P-9. Thereafter, P.W. 1 was sent to the Government hospital, Jaggaiahpet for medical examination. The Civil Surgeon, who was examined as P.W. 8, examined P.W. 1 on 5-8-1999 and issued Ex. P-6 certificate opining that P.W. 1 lost her virginity, but she is not habituated to sexual intercourse. On 6-8-1999 A-1 was arrested and produced before the court and was remanded to judicial custody. On a requisition, the medical officer, P.W. 6, examined A-1 on 8-11-1999 and issued Ex. P-5 potency certificate opining that he is capable of performing the sexual act. After completion of investigation, P.W. 10 laid charge sheet against the accused. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9. AS stated supra, the Court below found A-1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and A-2 and A-4 of the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Appeal is preferred. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 10 coupled with Exs.P-1 to P-9. P.W. 1 is the victim, P.W. 2 is her mother, P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 7 are the mediators, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 are the doctors, who examined A-1 and P.W. 1, respectively, and P.Ws. 9 and 10 are the investigating officers. However, P.Ws. 3, 4, and 5, in whose presence the alleged mediation took place, did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, the entire case rests on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7. 6. 9 and 10 are the investigating officers. However, P.Ws. 3, 4, and 5, in whose presence the alleged mediation took place, did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, the entire case rests on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7. 6. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, there is abnormal delay of about six months in lodging the report, that there is material contradiction in the evidence of P.W. 1 about the scene of offence, that P.W. 1 stated during the course of evidence that the alleged offence took place near a hayrick when she came to attend the calls of nature, whereas in the complaint filed before the court she has stated that the alleged incident took place in the room, where she was sleeping and therefore, the case of the prosecution has to be looked at with suspicion. Learned senior counsel also draws my attention to the evidence of the doctor, P.W. 8, who examined P.W. 1, and who deposed that the tears over the hymen are old and not of recent origin, and the age of the tears are within about 6 weeks. According to the learned senior counsel, if the said evidence is accepted, it is clear that the prosecution has not come up with true version, and therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the said submission stating that it is only on consideration of the entire evidence let in by the prosecution, the Court below rightly came to the conclusion that the alleged incident, as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses, is true and hence, it is not a fit case for interference. 8. No doubt, there is abnormal delay in lodging the report. But that itself is not a ground to reject the case of the prosecution, provided the said delay is explained properly. The alleged incident, according to P.W. 1, took place on 23-1-1999 and the complaint was filed into the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class on 2-7-1999, pursuant to which the crime was registered. But that itself is not a ground to reject the case of the prosecution, provided the said delay is explained properly. The alleged incident, according to P.W. 1, took place on 23-1-1999 and the complaint was filed into the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class on 2-7-1999, pursuant to which the crime was registered. The reason offered by the prosecution for the said delay is that the matter was reported to the elders and the parents of A-1 and they promised to see that the marriage of P.W. 1 would be performed with A-1, and on account of which she did not report the matter to the police. This explanation appears to be correct. When once the parents of A-1 assured that they would perform her marriage with A-1, it is nothing but normal human behaviour not to report the matter to police or file a complaint in the Court. It is only when the said promise is not fulfilled, the victim would come forward and report the matter to the police or file a complaint in the Court, as happened in the instant case. When the facts in the instant case are looked at in that angle, this Court is of the view that the delay is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, as it is properly explained. 9. Now coming to the medical evidence, this Court is of the view that it totally falsifies the case of the prosecution. According to the victim, on 23-1-1999 at about 12.30 in the mid night, when she came out for urinals, A-1 came behind her with a towel, tied her hands with the said towel and when she tried to raise cries, he put his banian into her mouth and prevented her from raising cries and thereafter committed rape on her. She has further stated that there was mediation in the presence of one Advocate, by name P. Prabhakar Rao, but it was not fruitful. She has also stated that before the said mediation, A-1 came to her house and expressed his willingness to marry her and further asked her to fulfill his sexual desire, but she refused for the same. Whereas, the doctor's evidence is to the following effect: “Tears over the hymen are old tears, not of recent nature. The age of tears over the hymen was within about 6 weeks. Whereas, the doctor's evidence is to the following effect: “Tears over the hymen are old tears, not of recent nature. The age of tears over the hymen was within about 6 weeks. The age of tears corresponds to what she stated and alleged.” From the said evidence of the doctor, it is clear that A-1 had sexual intercourse with the victim not only on 23-1-1999, but thereafter also, and her case that she never allowed A-1 to have sexual intercourse after 23-1-1999 is not true. Hence, this Court is of the view that the evidence of P.W. 1 cannot be accepted wholly. 10. Further the material contradiction pointed out by the learned senior counsel regarding the scene of offence is significant. In the complaint P.W. 1 states that the alleged incident took place in the room, whereas in the evidence she changes the said version and states that when she went to attend the calls of nature, the alleged incident happened near the hayrick. From the above it is clear that the prosecution has not come up with true version and a false case has been foisted against the accused. Taking into consideration all the above aspects, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, and thus A-1 is entitled to be acquitted. When A-1 is found not guilty of the alleged offence, the question of breach of promise to perform the marriage of P.W. 1 with A-1 by A-2 and A-4 would not come into picture. Hence, this Court is of the view A-2 and A-4 are also entitled for acquittal. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandigama, in S.C. No. 284 of 2000, vide judgment dated 21-8-2001, is set aside. The bail bonds of the appellants/accused shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused shall be refunded to them.