JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 30.10.1995 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarbhas, Alwar has acquitted the accused respondent Dharamvir Singh in the offence under Section 376 of I.P:C. 2. As per the prosecution case on 11.3.1995 at about 11-12 A.M., the accused Dharamvir Singh is alleged to have dragged the prosecutrix into the crop of mustard and forcibly ravished her. The police registered the F.I.R. Ex.P-2 on the written complaint Ex.P-1 of the prosecutrix and during investigation, prepared site plan Ex.P-3, seized the pieces of broken bangles from the place of occurrence vide Memo Ex.P-4, got the prosecutrix medically examined, recorded the statements of witnesses and after usual investigation, sent the accused for trial. 3. The accused was charged for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to further its version, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. In the explanation furnished under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused claimed innocence. On completion of trial, the accused was acquitted in the offences as indicated hereinabove. 4. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also the submissions of learned counsel for the accused respondent and perused the impugned judgment of the lower Court along with the relevant material available on record. 5. The most crucial question springing for consideration in this appeal is that as to whether the accused Dharamvir Singh committed rape upon the prosecutrix without her consent and against her will ? 6. Reflecting over the submissions made by both the parties, it is found that the written report Ex.P-1 was filed on 11.3.1995 at 11.05 PM by the prosecutrix. The occurrence of this case took place at 12.00 in the noon on 11.3.1995. The distance from the Police Station to the place of occurrence is only 5 Kms., but the prosecution has not explained the delay of 11 hours in lodging the F.I.R. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501 , this unexplained inordinate delay of 11 hours is found to be fatal to the prosecution. Secondly, as per Medical Examination Report Ex.P-5 of the prosecutrix no mark of bruise or abrasion was found present over her body. No marks of any swelling or tenderness present. Secondly, as per Medical Examination Report Ex.P-5 of the prosecutrix no mark of bruise or abrasion was found present over her body. No marks of any swelling or tenderness present. No marks of blood, dust or semen was also present over her body. 7. The Doctor has further explained that no marks of any injury or stained blood, semen or dust was present over the private parts. It is very interesting to note that after the registration of the case, the prosecutrix was medically examined on 12.3.1995. When no injury was found on the body and private parts of the prosecutrix, S.H.O., Police Station, Tijara sent the prosecutrix again for medical examination on 13.3.1995. On 13.3.1995, PW-8 Dr. S.K.Jain found one abrasion on right arm, one bruise on right side of the face and one abrasion on the left cheek. PW-9 Jeevan Singh, the Investigating Officer of this case has stated in the cross-examination that when he examined the prosecutrix at the time of registration of the case, he could not see any injury on her person, but when she came back from Alwar, so he noticed some external injuries on her body, then he again sent for medical examination to Medical Officer, Tijara. 8. Having perused the entire prosecution case, it is found that PW-11 Dr. Raj Kumar Mishra was posted as Medical Jurist in General Hospital, Alwar who examined the prosecutrix on 12.3.1995 and he did not find any injury on her person nor he found any injury on her private parts. Thus the re-medical examination of the prosecutrix on 13.3.1995 casts doubt about the conduct of the Investigating Officer PW-9 Jeevan Singh and the report Ex.P-6 of Dr. S.K. Jain and tells upon the whole prosecution case. 9. PW-1, the prosecutrix in her lengthy examination-in-chief and searching cross-examination has deposed that the accused bite her both cheeks when he was ravishing her. She has also stated that the accused bite her both cheeks with full force as a result of which blood from bite came out. She also sustained injuries on her buttocks and shoulders. She sustained the injury on her breasts also which she showed to the Doctor at the time of medical examination but none of the injuries finds place in the medical examination report Ex.P-5. Both the medical examination report Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 are contradictory to each other. 10. She also sustained injuries on her buttocks and shoulders. She sustained the injury on her breasts also which she showed to the Doctor at the time of medical examination but none of the injuries finds place in the medical examination report Ex.P-5. Both the medical examination report Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 are contradictory to each other. 10. Absence of injury on any part of the body of the victim some times probables absence of any coitus. When no mark of injury or violence is found on any part of the body inspite of having been forcibly ravished by the accused and despite struggle and the resistance applied by the prosecutrix, it can safely lead the Court to hold that either the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the act of coitus or no rape has been committed upon her. The statements given by the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination are laden with material contradictions in material particulars and also does not stand corroborated by medical evidence. The manner in which the Investigating Officer has collected the medical evidence one after another contradictory per se, casts doubt about his veracity. It seems to be a case of manipulation, manoevouring and concoction to which the Investigating Officer PW-9, Jeevan Singh also appears to be a party. The statements of the prosecutrix as also the Investigating Officer PW-9, Jeevan Singh do not inspire any confidence. They are found to be far away from truth. The testimony of both these witnesses is so unworthy of credence that it deserves to be abandoned in its entirety. 11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has critically examined the material and properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge of rape against the accused and the finding of acquittal of the trial Court, to my mind, is perfectly just, cogent and well-merited. I am in unison with the finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court which calls for no interference. 12. For these reasons, the State appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed. The accused respondent is on bail, his bail bonds stands discharged.Appeal dismissed. *******