JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 24th January, 1989 whereby, the Sessions Judge, Swai Madhopur acquitted the accused respondent Ram Karan in the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. 2. The nub of the prosecution story as unfolded by the prosecutrix is as under : That on 2.11.1985 at about 12.00 P.M., the prosecutrix PW/1, Smt. Basanti was coming back to her house after supplying food to her husband in his field. When she reached near the field of Bairwas, the accused Ram Karan suddenly came before her. She tried to cross him but the accused Ram Karan caught hold of her from the back tightly and took her to wayside and forcibly made her to lie on the ground. She cried but the accused gagged her mouth by a towel and pressed her breasts. It is further alleged that the accused forcibly lifted her Lehanga and ravished her by penetrating his penis into her vagina and while going, he threatened her to death if she divulged this incident to anybody else. On returning back to her house, she narrated the entire incident to her mother-in-law. Thereafter, she reproached the members of Ramkaran's family but they in turn stated that she deserved that treatment only. The prosecutrix filed a written complaint Ex.P/8 duly supported by an affidavit before Tehsildar, Khandar who sent it to S.H.O., P.S., Khandar who lodged the F.I.R. Ex.P/8 and commenced trial. 3. During investigation, site plan Ex.P/1 was prepared, torn clothes of the prosecutrix were seized vide Memo Ex.P/2, the statements of witnesses were recorded, the prosecutrix was medically examined, other necessary memos were drawn and after usual investigation, challan was filed against the accused Ram Karan in the Court. 4. The accused respondent was charged for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC who denied the guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove its case. The accused claimed innocence in his explanation furnished under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and on completion of trial, the Court acquitted the accused for the charge of rape as indicated here in above. 5. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and perused the impugned judgment of the lower court along with the relevant material available on record. 6. 5. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and perused the impugned judgment of the lower court along with the relevant material available on record. 6. At the very outset, it is relevant to mention here that the occurrence of this case took place on 2nd November, 1985 at 12.00 P.M. whereas the prosecutrix is found to have submitted the written report Ex.P/8 before the Executive Magistrate-cum-Tehsildar, Khandar on 7th November, 1985 who sent it to SHO, Police Station Khandar on the same day and the police lodged the F.I.R., on 8th November, 1985. The distance from the Police Station to the place of occurrence is found only 4 Kms. The prosecutrix in her searching cross-examination has explained the delay in these terms that on: 2.11.1985 her husband told that it was night, so they will report the matter next day in the morning. When she and her husband were going to Police Station to lodge the report, Ramkaran, Gangadhar, Hari, Ramphool, Maddu, Birbal, Shambhoo, Gyarasa, Dayal, Ramkishore and others came and wrongfully restrained them from going to Police Station. Thus, these persons did not allow them to go to Police for 6 days. When these persons became dormant, then only she came to Khandar and lodged the report. The Investigating Officer Shri Hazari Lai has not appeared in evidence and PW/9 Shri Madan Singh, Dy. S.P., has not furnished any plausible explanation with regard to delayed FIR. The explanation as furnished by the prosecutrix does not seem to be probable. It cannot be believed that the accused party must have restrained the prosecutrix for 6 days and she must not have been allowed to move anywhere. In fact, the prosecution has failed to furnish a reasonable and satisfactory explanation of these 6 days delay in lodging the FIR Ex.P/8. 7. 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 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 eye-witnesses 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.'' 8. 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 written report Ex.P/8 has been submitted. before Tehsildar, Khandar after 6 days of the occurrence and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished. Hence, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Ex.P/8 after 6 days of the incident is found to be fatal to the prosecution. The possibility of concocting an embellished story of rape cannot be ruled out in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Turning to the commission of offence of rape, it is found that the prosecution case solely rests on the evidence of prosecutrix Basanti. Albeit she has stated on oath that while coming back to her house, she was intercepted and caught hold from the back by Ram Karan who dragged her to wayside, made her to lie on the ground forcibly and thereafter in a hurried heat, ravished her forcibly against her will. After fulfilling his erotic sortie, the accused fled from there threatening her to death if she disclosed this incident to anybody. In her searching cross-examination, she had stated that the accused performed sexual intercourse with her for about half an hour, during the entire period of intercourse, her hands were on her breasts which were settled by the accused only. After fulfilling his erotic sortie, the accused fled from there threatening her to death if she disclosed this incident to anybody. In her searching cross-examination, she had stated that the accused performed sexual intercourse with her for about half an hour, during the entire period of intercourse, her hands were on her breasts which were settled by the accused only. She has further stated that the incident of rape resulted injuries on her thighs, waist, breasts and buttock but she did not bleed. She sustained tenderness and swelling on her private parts. The accused kissed her cheeks also and she sustained the injury on her cheeks of tooth bite. 10. In the Medical Examination Report Ex.P/11, the prosecutrix Mst. Basanti is not found to have sustained any injuries on her private parts. Report Ex.P/11 reveals that she had three simple abrasions on right breast and right thigh but no mark of injury or violence has been found on her cheeks, waist, breasts and buttocks. No swelling or tenderness has been found on her private parts. No injury has been seen on orifice of vagina. 11. The prosecutrix has led contradictory statements in her examination- in-chief and in her cross-examination. At one time, she stated that during intercourse she did not bleed and the other time she has stated that there was a bleeding from her vagina and there were so many marks of thorns on her buttocks but there is no evidence as such available on record. The statements of the prosecutrix herself are laden with contradictions on material particulars. There is no consistency in her evidence. The manner in which the prosecutrix has depicted the incident of rape leads the Court to infer that either the prosecutrix was a consenting party in the alleged sexual intercourse or no incident of rape occurred. The testimony of the prosecutrix, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not found to be reliable. Her statements do not inspire any confidence and on the basis of uncorroborated and incredible statements of the prosecutrix. The accused cannot be convicted. 12. The learned trial Court has critically examined and properly appreciated the prosecution evidence and its finding of acquittal is found to be cogent and just with which I fully concur and to my firm view, the impugned judgment does not call for any intervention. 13. The accused cannot be convicted. 12. The learned trial Court has critically examined and properly appreciated the prosecution evidence and its finding of acquittal is found to be cogent and just with which I fully concur and to my firm view, the impugned judgment does not call for any intervention. 13. For these reasons, the criminal appeal filed by the State is found to be totally devoid of merits and thus, stands dismissed.State Appeal Dismissed. *******