JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. : This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.11.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Koraput-Jeypore in S.C. No.14/86 and 22/89/S.C. No.37/86 & 120/87 in convicting the appellant under Sections 376/323/506 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offence under Section 376 IPC and one year on each count under Sections 323/506 IPC, the sentence to run con¬currently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Trusharani Mistri is the married wife of Amal Mistri residing at village MV-69 under Kaliamela Police Station in the district of Koraput. On 22.11.1985 evening Trusharani along with her father-in-law, her husband’s younger brother Sumala, her husband’s elder brother Parimal and her husband’s elder brother’s wives Susma and Anjali had gone to see the Jatra. At about 3.30 A.M. they were returning to their village via Kaliamela. Trusharani, the prosecutrix, and Sumal were going ahead and others were at a little behind. When Trusharani and Sumal reached the tea stall at Kalimela, an un¬known person gave a push to Trusharani and stood near accused Ladu Kishore Pradhan, the Chairman of Kaliamela Panchayat Samiti. When Sumal went and protested, Ladu Kishore Pradhan assaulted him as well as the complainant Trusharani. Ladu Kishore Pradhan, the present appellant gave pushes to Sumal and dragged Trusharani-P.W. 1 towards the house of one Jain Marwadi, kept herein one room and Sumal in another room.When the father-in-law and others of the complainant protested, accused-appellant drove them out. He entered inside the room there the complainant was confined and attached her and thereafter committed sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix-P.W.1 narrated the incident before Sumal and both of them narrated the incident before her husband. In the morning, her husband complained before the Co-accused Laxmi Kanta Biswas, the President of village of Palli Mangal Samiti who consoled them. Thereafter, accused-Ladu Kishore Pradhan and the then O.I.C. of Venkatapalam Police Station came and threatened the complainant and the prosecutrix. On Monday while the complainant and her husband were going to Kalemala Police Station for lodging the report, both the accused persons came and threatened them with dire consequences; so they went back. On Tuesday, when both of them had gone to the hospital for medical examination, the accused persons came to the hospital and asked them to go away, or else face dire consequences. On Tuesday, when both of them had gone to the hospital for medical examination, the accused persons came to the hospital and asked them to go away, or else face dire consequences. So, out of fear, they returned to their village. Some days thereafter, the complainant prosecutrix) and her husband could manage to go to Koraput and submitted a written report before the Collector, who advised them to complain before the Chairman, Legal Aid and Advice Committee, Malkangiri. The complainant submitted an application before the Chairman of the Legal Aid and Advice Committee, Malkangiri and on 21.1.1986 lodged a complaint before the S.D.J.M., Malkangiri registered as I.C.C. No.8 of 1986, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323/342/354/506/376/34 I.P.C.. Thereafter, the case was turned to S.C.No.14 of 1986. The Chair¬man, Legal Aid and Advice Committee, on receipt of a report on 17.1.1986, forwarded the same to the O.I.C., Venkatapalam, Police Station, which was registered at the Police Station on 27.1.1986 on the basis of which Venkatpalam P.S. Case No.7 of 1986 (G.R. Case No.41 of 1986) was registered under Sections 323/506/376 IPC and investigation was taken up. After completion of investiga¬tion, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. On being committed to the Court of session, the case was numbered as S.C. No.22 of 1989. As both the complaint case and the G.R. case arose out of the same occurrence, both the Sessions Case Nos. 14/86 and 22/89 were clubbed together and disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The defence took the plea of complete denial and false implication. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. P.s.1 is the victim, P.W.2 is her brother-in-law, who is a witness to the occurrence, P.W.6 is the husband of the victim, P.Ws. 3 and 4 are other co-villagers who saw a part of the occurrence, P.W.5 is a seizure witness and P.Ws.7 and 8 are the investigating officers. Prosecution also proved seven documents marked Exts. 1 to 7. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who tried the case, by his judgment and order dated 28.11.1989 while acquitting the co-accused Laxmikanta Biswas, convicted the appellant under Sections 376/323/506 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years under Section 376 IPC and 1 year on each count under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. 6. Mr. 1 to 7. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who tried the case, by his judgment and order dated 28.11.1989 while acquitting the co-accused Laxmikanta Biswas, convicted the appellant under Sections 376/323/506 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years under Section 376 IPC and 1 year on each count under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. 6. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. before the police inasmuch as F.I.R. was lodged more than 10 days after the occur¬rence. The evidence of the prosecutrix-P.W.1 is not trustworthy and no conviction under Section 376 IPC can be based on such evidence. Moreover, there is no medical evidence. There are major contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the prosecutrix has developed the story from stage to stage. 7. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently contends that there is no infirmity in the judgment and order of the trial Court. The evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the appellant under Section 376 IPC. Howev¬er, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Though there are some minor contradictions here and there in the evidence of the witnesses the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown over board for the same. 8. Perused the LCR. From the statement of P.W. 1- prosecu¬trix it reveals that while the prosecutrix along with her broth¬er-in-law father-in-law and sisters-in-law along with some co-villagers who had gone to see the Jatra, were returning from the Jatra at about 3.00 or 3.30 A.M. an unknown person gave a push to P.W.1 and stood near the appellant Ladu Kishore Pradhan. When P.W.2 objected to the same the present appellant assaulted him by a lathi. He also assaulted the prosecutrix on her right wrist with the said lathi. Thereafter, the appellant asked us to go to the police station, gave pushes to her husband’s brother, dragged her to the house of one Jain Karwari and confined them in sepa¬rate rooms of the said Jain Marwari. The appellant remained inside the room of the prosecutrix and closed the door from in¬side. She further stated that she was crying and shouting while she was being dragged and confined inside the room. She was also crying while being kept inside the room. The appellant-Ladu Pradhan made her naked and thereafter committed rape inspite of her protest. The appellant remained inside the room of the prosecutrix and closed the door from in¬side. She further stated that she was crying and shouting while she was being dragged and confined inside the room. She was also crying while being kept inside the room. The appellant-Ladu Pradhan made her naked and thereafter committed rape inspite of her protest. When she and her husband’s younger brother came out of their respective rooms, she narrated the story before him. Thereafter they went to their house and narrated the incident to her husband. P.W.2, the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix has corroborated the statement of the victim-P.W.1 to the extent that both of them were pushed by the present appellant and another accused and were confined in separate rooms. He also stated that after some time, the victim came out. Thereafter, the door of the room where he was confined was opened and he came out.Then P.W.1 narrated the incident before him. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 narrated the incident before the husband of the victim. P.W.3 is a co-villager who stated that he saw the accused Ladu Kishore Pradhan assault¬ing P.Ws. 1 and 2. He also stated that the lady was crying and shouting at that time. P.W.4, another co-villager in his evidence stated that he saw the accused-appellant assaulting P.ws.1 and 2. P.W.5 is the witness to seizure. P.W.6, the husband of the pro¬secutrix-P.W.1 in his evidence stated that he heard about the assault by the appellant to P.Ws. 1 and 2 from his father and he went to the spot, where his wife narrated the incident. Thereaf¬ter, they returned to the village. D.W.1-Sumitra Mistry, who was examined by the defence, in her evidence stated that while they were returning, Trusarani-P.W.1 and her brother-in-law, P.W.2 were going ahead and we all were at a little distance. At Kaliamela one Manu Kumuti gave a push to Trusarani P.W.2 objected to it and the appellant came and asked why there was ‘Gondagol’. The evidence of D.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 also corroborated the statement of D.W.1. P.W.1- prosecutrix stated in her evidence that while she was being dragged by appellant to the house of Jain Marwadi, her other family members were driven away by him and they fled away. She also stated that P.W.2, her brother-in-law, was kept in one room of the Marwadi’s house while she was kept in another room. P.W.1- prosecutrix stated in her evidence that while she was being dragged by appellant to the house of Jain Marwadi, her other family members were driven away by him and they fled away. She also stated that P.W.2, her brother-in-law, was kept in one room of the Marwadi’s house while she was kept in another room. After she was ravished, the appellant opened the door. From the scanning of the evidence of P.W.1, it appears that while she was being dragged by the appellant, she was crying and protesting. Thereafter she was confined in a room. No resistance was offered by her at the time of occurrence. However, it is shocking that though such an incident took place in presence of several per¬sons, no information was lodged at the Police Station, either by any outsider or by the family members of the prosecutrix, who allegedly were chased away by the appellant. P.W.2 who happens to be the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix stated that while they are returning from the Jatra, P.W.1 was pushed by one Kuna Minis¬try. On objection being raised by him, the appellant came and assaulted them. On scanning of the evidence of the prosecutrix P.W.1 this Court finds that she is not a reliable witness and there is absolutely no material against the appellant. Moreover, no plau¬sible explanation has been given by the prosecution for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. There is no corroborative evidence with regard to rape. All the prosecution witnesses have only stated that the appellant dragged the victim. It is the settled position of law that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R.. In the instant case, no attempt has been made by the prosecution to do so. 9. In view of the above, this Court sets aside the convic¬tion of the appellant under Section 376 IPC. So far as Sections 323/506 IPC are concerned, there is no injury on the person of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, no case has been made out against the appellant under Section 323 IPC. As such, his conviction under Section 323 IPC cannot be sustained. But considering the evidence of P.W.1 and the corroborative evidences of P.Ws.2 and 3, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove a case of criminal intimidation against the appel¬lant. As such, his conviction under Section 323 IPC cannot be sustained. But considering the evidence of P.W.1 and the corroborative evidences of P.Ws.2 and 3, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove a case of criminal intimidation against the appel¬lant. Therefore, this Court confirms his conviction under Section 506 IPC. 10. For the foregoing discussions, this Court sets aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 376 and 323 IPC. This Court, however, affirms his conviction under Section 506 IPC. But keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place way back in 1985 when the appellant was 41 years old and now he is almost most 60 years of age, this Court reduces the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand), in default to undergo R.I. for three months. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed in part.