JUDGMENT S.K. SHARMA, J 1. Since both the appeals have arisen out of one common judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The appellants have filed heir respective appeal against the judgment dated 6th July, 1993 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case No. 391/54 of 1991/92 whereby both the appellants were found guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that while the informant Dropadi Devi was returning home after working in the Refinary township at about 7.00 P.M. on 25.4.1991 and when she had come out from the Bagicha situated beind the Dera of one Agnu Sah and had taken Ekparia Road, accused Mahendra Singh and Rajniti Singh caught hold of her and dragged her to a Fush Dera of Agnu Sah situated within Machha Mauza, within Begusarai Mufassil P.S. and forced her to sit and when she raised hulla accused Mahendra Singh pressed her mouth and gave threats. Thereafter, both the them committed rape upon her as a result of which she sustained severe pain. She went to her house and out of shame she slept weeping. In the following morning, she Marrated about the occurrence to her Gotinis Urmila Devi, Shakuntala Devi and Ram Sohani Devi. All these three woman advised her that matter should be reported to police after the return of male members. The male members returned house in the evening of 27.4.1991 and they learnt about the occurrence. They took the informant-victim with them and proceeded to meet one Chandrachurdeo of Ulao and when reached there, he advised to report the matter to police and when proceeded for police station, in the way, accused Ram Ashray Chaudhary came and started assulting them as a result of which Rajesh Thakur sustained injuries and his eyes became red and tears came out. Thereafter they proceeded for police station and there the fardbeyan of Dropadi Devi was recorded by S.I. Musafir Pandey on 28.4.1991 at 11.00 hours and a case under Sections 376, 109/34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted. The matter was investigated into and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. After cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions. The matter was investigated into and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. After cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions. The trial proceeded. Charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against both the accused and a further charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against accused Ram Ashray Chaudhary who has been acquitted by the trial court. Charges were explained to the accused persons who pleaded innocence and preferred to face the trial. 4. The defence of the appellants including acquitted accused was of false implication on account of the fact that the son of Hareram Thakur had enticed away the daughter of Laxmi Singh as a result of which there has been development of strained relationship between members of two different castes in the village and on the alleged date of occurrence, informant Dropadi Devi was hurling abuses to the members of other caste upon which accused Mahendra Singh had assaulted with fists and slaps to her for which a criminal case being G.R. No. 150 of 1983 was also lodged in which accused Mahendra Singh has been acquitted. As such, the defence of the appellants was that at the instance of her relative, the informant has filed the case which is completely fabricated. The defence has examined one witness to support the fact to the defence that because of assault to Dropadi Devi by accused Mahendra Singh on 25.4.1991 and because there was strained relationship between two castes, this false case has been lodged. The certified copy of judgment of G.R. No. 150 of 1983 was exhibited as Ext. A. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses. They are: P.W. 1 Bashishtha Thakur, P.W. 2 Rajesh Thakur, P.W. 3 Dropadi Devi, the informant, P.W. 4 Urmila Devi, P.W. 5 Sakuntala Devi, P.W. 6 Narsingh Thakur P.W. 7 Dr. Kamini Rai and P.W. 8 Rajendra Prasad. 6. P.W.s. 4 and 5 have been declared tendered. P.W. 8 is a formal witness. 7. P.W. 1 in his evidence has stated that on 25.4 .1991 he was working in Begusarai. On 27.4.1991 he received information that the appellants have committed rape upon Dropadi Devi and thereafter came to his house. Kamini Rai and P.W. 8 Rajendra Prasad. 6. P.W.s. 4 and 5 have been declared tendered. P.W. 8 is a formal witness. 7. P.W. 1 in his evidence has stated that on 25.4 .1991 he was working in Begusarai. On 27.4.1991 he received information that the appellants have committed rape upon Dropadi Devi and thereafter came to his house. At house the informant told him that on 25.4.1991 at about 7.00 P.M. while she was returning, the accused persons caught her and took her to the Dera of Agnu Sao where they committed rape upon her. This witness further stated that he got information ab9ut the occurrence after three days. In his evidence there is no explapation as to why the delay was caused. 8. P.W. 2 Rajesh Thakur has stated in his evidence that he received information about the occurrence on 27.4.1991 while he was at his shop at Tapasiya Chawk. This witness reiterated the same thing. This witness further stated that when he came to house, Urmila Devi and wife of Narsing Thakur and one another woman also told about the occurrence. This witiness also stated that when on 28.4.1991, he alongwith others was going to police station, in the way, there was assault by Ram Ashray Chaudhary as a result of which he received injury on his right eye. This witness was treated in Navin Chikitsalaya. 9. P.W. 3 is the informant herself. She has stated in her evidence that on 25.4.1991 at about 7.00 P.M. while she was returning home from Refinary township after performing her work, she was dragged by the appellants and they took her to the Dera of Agnu Sao and committed rape upon her. After occurrence, this witness stated that she reached home and due to pain she slept weeping in night and on the next morning, she told to her gotinis P.Ws. 4 and 5 and Ram Sohawni Devi who has not been examined. This witness has also stated about the assault which had occurred in the way of police station and thereafter about her treatment at Begusarai hospital. In cross-examination, suggestion was given to this witness that earlier a girl was eloped and on account of that there was bitterness between the members of two castes but she showed her ignorance. 10. This witness has also stated about the assault which had occurred in the way of police station and thereafter about her treatment at Begusarai hospital. In cross-examination, suggestion was given to this witness that earlier a girl was eloped and on account of that there was bitterness between the members of two castes but she showed her ignorance. 10. P.W.6 has stated that he was out of the village on the date of occurrence and when he reached home on 27.4.1991, he learnt about the occurrence from the informant. This witness has supported the prosecution case and has stated the same thing which has been stated by P.Ws. 1 and 2. 11. P.W. 7 is doctor who on 29.4.1001 was posted in Begusarai Hospital. In her evidence, she has stated that for examination of informant Dropadi Devi, a Medical Board consisting of three doctors was constituted and she was also a member and following injuries were found on the person of Dropadi Devi:- (i) Abrasion on face below left lower eye lid 1/4" x 1/4". (ii) Linear scratch on posterior part of left arm 1/2" in legth. (iii) Lacerated infected wound on left side of mens pubis 1/6" x 1/6" skin deep. (iv) There was no mark of injury on the back. (v) Breast pendulus multiple linear stria on anterior abdomen wall with tubectomy scar. 12. No definite opinion of rape was given. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the alleged rape has never occurred and there is no explanation as to why the matter of rape was reported on 28.4.1991 though the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 25.4.1991. Further submission is that the matter of rape has been cooked up and for this reason P.Ws. 4 and 5, both are gotinis of the informant, have been tendered. The case of the informant was that after occurrence she returned to her house and on the next day she had narrated the entire matter to P.Ws. 4 and 5 but they have not supported the prosecution case in the sense that they have been tendered for cross-examination. So, this case is based on the testimony of single witness and that too is fake and fabricated. Further submission is that non-explanation of delay in lodging the case for about three days and non-examination of material witnesses including the Investigating Officer are fatal to prosecution case. So, this case is based on the testimony of single witness and that too is fake and fabricated. Further submission is that non-explanation of delay in lodging the case for about three days and non-examination of material witnesses including the Investigating Officer are fatal to prosecution case. 14. Learned counsel for the informant has argued that since the informant has no grievance with the appellants and the matter has already been compromised, further mental agony of the appellants may not be allowed to continue. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants and no interference is required by this Court. 16. The case is based on testimony of single witness. In case of rape, corroboration is rarely found but the case has to be considered in totality and the total facts are to be looked into before passing order of conviction. The case of the prosecution is that the occurrence took place on 25.4.1991 and the police station is not far away. Therefore, the matter should have been reported on 25th or 26th April, 1991 as the informant had told the matter to P.Ws. 4 and 5. On the next day also i.e. 27.4.1991, the matter was not reported to the police. The matter was reported to police on 28.4.1991. The belated report to the police and non-examination of Investigating Officer are other circumstances which go against the prosecution. 17. After analysing the entire evidences and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 18. In the result, both the appeals (Cr. Appeal Nos. 194 and 206 of 1993) are allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is set aside. The appellants are also discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.