Judgment : This appeal has been preferred by the accused in S.C.No.6 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Ariyalur, Perambalur District. The accused has been charged under Section 376 IPC on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.4. After trial the accused was convicted by the learned trial judge and sentenced to undergo 8 years RI and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence, which necessitated the accused to prefer this appeal. 2. The learned committal judge, after taking cognizance of the offence, issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., to the accused and since the case is tribal by a Court of Sessions, he has committed the case to the court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. 3. The accused appeared before the Court of Sessions and on his appearance charge under Section 376 IPC has been framed by the learned Sessions Judge and when questioned the accused pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 were exhibited and M.O.1 & M.O.2 were marked. After going through the evidence, the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him as indicated above. 4. P.W.1 is the doctor, who had examined the victim and issued Ex.P.2-certificate stating that she is not virgin. P.W.2 is the doctor, who had examined the accused and issued Ex.P.4, certificate of potency. 5. P.W.3 is the father of the victim girl. According to him, he was not in the house at the time of the occurrence and he returned to the house at 5.00 pm and the victim girl, her daughter, was left at the care of his wife, who is mentally retorted. Ex.P.5 is the complaint preferred by him. He has identified M.O.1 & M.O.2 as the wearing apparels of the victim girl. 6. P.W.4 is the victim girl, who would depose in the chief-examination that the accused had committed the offence of rape. P.W.5 & P.W.6 are the neighbors, who have conducted a panchayat at the instance of P.W.3, the father of the victim girl. 7. P.W.8 is the Inspector of Police, who had registered the case under Cr.No.186 of 2004 under Section 376 IPC on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.3. P.W.5 & P.W.6 are the neighbors, who have conducted a panchayat at the instance of P.W.3, the father of the victim girl. 7. P.W.8 is the Inspector of Police, who had registered the case under Cr.No.186 of 2004 under Section 376 IPC on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.3. He had taken up the investigation and visited the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.6 in the presence of P.W.7 and M.O.1 & M.O.2 were also recovered from P.W.4 in the presence of P.W.7 under Ex.P.7-recovery mahazar. Ex.P.9 is the rough sketch drawn by P.W.8. He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The accused was arrested on 29. 2004 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate for judicial remand. After completing the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused. 8. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied his complicity with the crime. After goring through the evidence, the learned trial judge has come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the accused has been proved and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 376 IPC to undergo 8 years RI and slapped a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial judge, the accused has preferred this appeal. 9. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial judge is sustainable for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal? .10. The Point:- The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr.A.Sirajudeen would focus the attention of this Court to the evidence of the victim girl P.W.4 in her cross-examination and would contend that the charge levelled against the accused will not be maintainable in lieu of the deposition made before the Court in the cross-examination by the victim. In the cross-examination P.W.4, victim girl, would depose that she had already been subjected to rape by one Arokkiyam and in that connection there was a panchayat held and she had received compensation in the panchayat and that in that connection she was taken to a hospital and featus was also aborted subsequently. She would also depose that a panchayat was held in this case also and before the panchayat compensation was demanded by her, but the accused had refused to give any amount by way of compensation. She would also depose that a panchayat was held in this case also and before the panchayat compensation was demanded by her, but the accused had refused to give any amount by way of compensation. She would categorically admit that while the accused was carrying her in his arm, she raised distress call which attracted the neighbors and on seeing the neighbors approaching them, the accused Murugesan left her and ran away. She would further depose that she has not revealed to the doctor that she was subjected to rape by a person. So the entire edifice of the case of the prosecution has fallen to the grounds due to the evidence of P.W.4, victim girl, in the cross-examination. P.W.1 also corroborates the evidence of P.W.4 to the effect that she appear to have accustomed to sexual intercourse often previously. Further, in this case no material object recovered from the victim girl was sent for chemical examination and no wearing apparels were also seized from the accused. Further, no neighbors who, according to P.W.4, have witnessed at the time when the accused carried P.W.4, were also examined in this case. P.W.5, who had conducted a panchayat on 20.9.2004, has also deposed to the effect that in the panchayat the accused had denied the charge and that he advised P.W.3 to prefer a police complaint. According to prosecution, the offence was committed on 19. 2004 at 3.00 pm. But the complaint was preferred five days thereafter i.e., on 29. 2004. There is no proper explanation forthcoming from the side of the prosecution for this inordinate delay in preferring the complaint. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the charge levelled against the accused under Section 376 IPC has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The learned trial judge without considering the evidence of the victim girl P.W.4 in the cross-examination and also the evidence of P.W.1, the doctor, had come to an erroneous conclusion that the charge levelled against the accused has been proved, which warrants interference from this Court. Point is answered accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.6 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Ariyalur, is hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted from the charge levelled against him and he is set at liberty. Point is answered accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.6 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Ariyalur, is hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted from the charge levelled against him and he is set at liberty. Fine amount paid by the accused is to be returned to the accused.