JUDGMENT 1. - The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 29th October, 1994 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar did not find the accused respondent Ram Lal guilty in the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and thus acquitted him. 2. The nub of the prosecution story as unfolded by the prosecutrix PW-1 Devendra Kaur is as under:- That on 14th June, 1992 at about 4 pm, the prosecutrix PW-1 Devendra Kaur was sleeping alone in her house. Other members of her family had gone to field. It is alleged that the accused Ram Lal 'Chamar' resident of Mandlakala having suddenly entered into the house fell upon and pressed her down. She screamed and floundered but the accused broke the draw-strings of her Salwar and also torn off both Salwar and Kurta and penetrated his penis into her vagina. She then loudly cried and having heard her screams, her bothers Dalveer Singh, Satnaam Singh, her neighbour Jadmal came raising the alarm there, the accused after hearing their alarm ran from there after fulfilling his erotic sortie. Her brothers and neighbour chased the accused but of no avail. The prosecutrix submitted a written report of this incident Ex.P/1 before S.H.O., Police Station Ramgarh, who registered the FIR Ex.P/2 and commenced investigating. 3. During investigation, the police prepared site plan Ex.P/3, seized one Salwar and Kurta of the prosecutrix vide memo Ex.P/4, got the prosecutrix and the accused both medically examined, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, prepared necessary memos and after usual investigation the Officer Incharge of Police Station filed a chargesheet in the Court. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove its case. The accused on being asked to explain the circumstances appearing against him under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, has submitted that the brothers of the prosecutrix had beaten him badly and abandoned him assuming that he had died. He lodged the report against them with the police and so with a view to counter, they have implicated him in this case by leveling false allegation of committed rape upon their sister. 5. Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and perused the relevant material including the prosecution evidence available on record. 6. 5. Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and perused the relevant material including the prosecution evidence available on record. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor assailing the impugned judgment of the learned trial court has contended that the statements of the prosecutrix PW-1 Devendra Kaur stands fully corroborated by the prosecution witnesses PW-3 Dalveer Singh, PW-4 Satnaam Singh, PW-5 Jeet Lal and PW-7 Kalwant Kaur. As per PW-7 Kalwant Kaur, she is a witness who is said to have reached on the spot first. She has also fully corroborated the statements of the prosecutrix. She has deposed in her statements that when after hearing the screams from her father-in-laws' house, she reached there, she found the accused Ram Lal hurriedly coming out from the room of her sister-in-law Devendra Kaur. The accused had put his trouser on his shoulder and was holding his shorts dPNk with both the hands. Her husband, Jeet Lal, Jhadmal, chased the accused to some distance but he could not be caught. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of these prosecution witnesses and from the unimpeachable testimony of these witnesses, the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is proved beyond doubt against the accused-respondent, as such the impugned judgment of the lower Court should be set aside and the accused-respondent be convicted accordingly. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has fairly submitted that the impugned judgment of the lower court is perfectly, just and proper. He has further contended that the statements of the prosecutrix, are full of contradictions. She has made the improvement in his statements before the Court on material particulars. The contents of report Ex.P/1 and the statements of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses are at variance which per se falsifies the whole story of rape as narrated by the prosecutrix. The medical examination report does not disclose any injury on her private parts. Matting of pubic hair has also not found to be seen by the doctor, hence the story of the prosecutrix does not get corroboration from medical evidence also, as such, the State appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. The medical examination report does not disclose any injury on her private parts. Matting of pubic hair has also not found to be seen by the doctor, hence the story of the prosecutrix does not get corroboration from medical evidence also, as such, the State appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Having considered and ruminated the submissions made before me and scanned the material documents properly, it is found that the occurrence of this case took place at 4 pm. on July 14, 1992, whereas, the report of this incident has been made in the police station on June 15, 1992 at 9:15 am. The written report Ex.P/1 and the statements of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the real brothers and the sister-in-law of the prosecutrix reached on the spot just after the occurrence but they did not go to the police station to lodge the report same day whereas the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station Ramgarh is found to be only 11 km. The prosecution has not satisfactorily explained the delay of approximately 17 hours in lodging the report. On searching cross-examination of the prosecutrix PW-1 Devendra Kaur it has been found that the prosecutrix reached the police station at 2 pm on June 16, 1992. The prosecutrix has stated that firkth dks jktchj cqykus x;k Fkk ---------------- firkth 2 cts ?kj vk;s Fks fQj dgk ckjg cts igqp x, FksA nks cts eSa] lruke] nychj] thryky] tM~ey Fkkuk jkex<+ igqWp x, FksA esjs firk us Fkkus esa fjiksVZ fy[kknhA fjiksVZ Fkkus esa gh fy[kokbZ Fkh tks Fkkus okyksa us fy[kh Fkh ftl ij eSaus nLr[kr dj fn,A This statement of prosecutrix evinces that the prosecutrix alone with her brothers and neighbour Jhadmal reached the police station Ramgarh on June 15, 1992 at 2 pm whereas, the written report Ex.P/1, as per police, is said to have been filed at 9:15 am. It shows that the police, in connivance with the prosecutrix and her brother has manipulated the case and purposely shown the submission of written report Ex.P/1 at 9:15 am. Whereas, according to the prosecutrix herself, she reached police station Ramgarh at 2 pm. 9. The accused's defence is that the brothers of the prosecutrix had beaten him and abandoned him presuming that he had died. Whereas, according to the prosecutrix herself, she reached police station Ramgarh at 2 pm. 9. The accused's defence is that the brothers of the prosecutrix had beaten him and abandoned him presuming that he had died. Thereafter, he lodged the report against them and with a view to counter his report the prosecutrix and her brothers have falsely implicated him in this case. The accused's defence is fortified by the statement of the prosecutrix, she has given in the cross-examination, which is as under : fjiksVZ djus ls igys esjs nksuksa HkbZ;ksa dks Fkkus can dj j[kk FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd jkeyky dks esjs HkbZ;ksa }kjk ekjihV djus ds tqeZ esa can fd;k gksA 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances, the delay in lodging the First Information Report with police station Ramgarh by the prosecutrix is found to be fatal as the prosecution has failed to furnish a reasonable and satisfactory explanation of this delay. 11. In Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held: "First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the report can hardly be over-estimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the First Information Report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after-thought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained." 12. In the above case, the occurrence was not reported for more than 20 hours. The delay was found to be fatal to the prosecution and to base conviction upon such evidence was held to be unsafe. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained." 12. In the above case, the occurrence was not reported for more than 20 hours. The delay was found to be fatal to the prosecution and to base conviction upon such evidence was held to be unsafe. But in the instant case, the complaint Ex.P/1 has been filed in the police station Ramgarh after a delay of 17 hours of the occurrence and the prosecution has miserably failed to furnish satisfactory and reasonable explanation of this delay which to my firm view, is found to be fatal to the prosecution. 13. The next infirmity which emerges in the prosecution case is that all the prosecution witnesses except PW-8 Jadmal are the family members of the prosecutrix. PW-29 Babu Singh happens to be her father, PW-3 Dalbeer Singh, PW-4 Satnaam Singh and PW-5 Jeetlal are the brothers of the prosecutrix and PW-7 Kalwant Kaur is her sister-in-law. The prosecutrix nowhere scribbles in written report Ex.P/1 that having heard her screams, her sister-in-law Kalwant Kaur reached on the spot first, whereas PW-7 Kalwant Kaur has stated on oath that she was the first to reach in the house of her father-in-law, where her sister-in-law Devendra Kaur was sleeping in her room. She saw the accused Ramlal coming out of her room hurriedly who was having a trouser on his shoulder and holding his under garment dPNk by both his hands. As per the statements of witnesses, the accused was seen in a half naked state but prosecutrix, in the written report Ex.P/1, has not mentioned all these facts which proves that the witnesses have made the improvements in their statement. They, with a view to implicate the accused, have exaggerated their version which cast doubt about their veracity. The First Information Report Ex.P/1 has been given by the prosecutrix herself who is required and expected to narrate the first version truly as it occurred. But the substratum of the case is found to have been adversely shattered. The manner in which the prosecutrix PW-1 Devendra Kaur has deposed in the Court and the style in which the occurrence has been recited by her leads me to infer that the testimony of the prosecutrix is not found to be unimpeachable. But the substratum of the case is found to have been adversely shattered. The manner in which the prosecutrix PW-1 Devendra Kaur has deposed in the Court and the style in which the occurrence has been recited by her leads me to infer that the testimony of the prosecutrix is not found to be unimpeachable. The statements of the prosecutrix inspires no confidence and the evidence of her relative witnesses is found to be unbelievable. There is only one independent witness PW-8 Jadmal but he has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile. Albeit, he has been declared hostile by the prosecution but in the facts and circumstances of the case, his statement is found to be genuine. 14. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction for rape. The evidence of a victim of a sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding and while corroboration in the form of eye witness account of an independent witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence cannot be expected in sex offences, having regard to the very nature of the offence. But, in peculiar fact - situation corroboration may be a necessity. Thus, where the statements made by the victimprosecutrix during trial, contained a lot of improvement over the F.I.R. and was also at variance with the F.I.R on material points and the witnesses are the close relatives of the victim and no opinion about rape was expressed by the doctor after pathological examination and there was no other witness to corroborate the victim, and the circumstances were also against her, it would not be proper to convict the accused on the sole testimony of victim-prosecutrix. True, it is that minor omissions and variations on F.I.R would not affect the prosecution case, if it is substantially the same as was mentioned in the F.I.R, but designed and deliberate omissions or variations are not inconsequential, particularly when the F.I.R has been lodged by the prosecutrix herself to whom all the important facts were known and if she does not mention them in the F.I.R, such omission goes to the root of the prosecution and affects the probabilities of the case adversely. 15. The learned trial court has critically analyzed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail and rendered cogent, just and apt finding of acquittal in the case. 15. The learned trial court has critically analyzed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail and rendered cogent, just and apt finding of acquittal in the case. The judgment of the lower court is found to be well merited. I am in unison with the finding of acquittal of the lower court and it calls for no intervention. 16. For these reasons criminal appeal filed by the State is found to be totally devoid of merits and thus stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******