JUDGMENT : K.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal was decided by this Court on 22-1-2004. State of M.P. by way of Special Leave filed Criminal Appeal No. 992/06 before Apex Court. Apex Court allowed the appeal on 22-9-2006. The order of this Court was set aside and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 2. This Criminal Appeal under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 22-1-2003 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Raisen in Session Trial No. 178/99, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default 6 months S.I. 3. Prosecution case in short is that on 8-6-1999 victim (PW-1) aged 20 years was sleeping in a room of her house. At about 00.30 a.m. in night appellant entered in her room, sat on her bed and committed rape. She cried. He ran in naked condition leaving his clothes. She caught his penis and caused injury by knife. On hearing cries, her husband and father-in-law came there. Quarrel in between them took place outside the house. Report was lodged on 9-6-1999 at 3.30 a.m. at police station Raisen wherein the Crime No. 118/99 under sections 276, 450 and 323 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. She was sent for medical examination. Doctor opined that rape has been committed. Her salwar and slide were seized. Underwear and Baniyan of the appellant which he left there were also seized. Map was prepared. Appellant was arrested on 16-6-1999. He was also medically examined. Accordingly, it was found that temporarily he was not able to perform sexual intercourse on account of injury and swelling on his penis but in absence of the wound and swelling he was able to perform sexual intercourse. Slide of the appellant was also seized. The seized articles were sent to the Director, F.S.L. Sagar from where the report received. Accordingly semen and spermatozoa were found on article-A, B-1, B-2, C, D-1 and D-2. After completing the usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of C.J.M. Raisen from where the case was committed to Sessions Court for trial. 4. The seized articles were sent to the Director, F.S.L. Sagar from where the report received. Accordingly semen and spermatozoa were found on article-A, B-1, B-2, C, D-1 and D-2. After completing the usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of C.J.M. Raisen from where the case was committed to Sessions Court for trial. 4. Appellant was charged under section 376 of Indian Penal Code to the effect that on 8-6-1999 at night he committed rape with victim. Appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses whereas the appellant examined only one witness. After relying on the prosecution evidence, trial Court found him guilty and convicted and sentenced thereunder as stated in Para No. 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence, instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5. Shri A. Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during day time incident took place in between the appellant and the husband of the prosecutrix but the matter was patched up. In the night when the appellant came out of his house for toilet, father-in-law of the prosecutrix caught hold of him and the husband of the prosecutrix caused injuries to his penis. On his cries the family members came out of the house who were also beaten. The report was lodged and they were also medically examined. This report by the prosecutrix has been made later in point of time and is the counterblast of the earlier report lodged by the appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that no any blood was seized from the spot and no knife has been seized. False case is cooked up against the appellant. Finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 6. On the other hand, Shri R.N. Yadav, learned P.L. appearing on behalf of the respondent/State submitted that the offence has been proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The defence is palpably wrong. Trial Court has rightly convicted him, therefore, it does not call for any interference. 7. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting the appellant under section 376 of Indian Penal Code? 8. The defence is palpably wrong. Trial Court has rightly convicted him, therefore, it does not call for any interference. 7. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting the appellant under section 376 of Indian Penal Code? 8. PW-1 is the victim who has deposed that on 8-6-1999 she was sleeping in her room. Her baby of 3-4 months was also sleeping with her. In the night the appellant entered in her room, kept his hand on her mouth, she tried to cry but could not. He kept the knife on the neck of her baby. He put off his clothes and also her salwar. He penetrated his penis into her private part and committed rape. When he was going out of room after performing this act she cried and snatched knife from his hand and caused injury to his penis. He ran in the naked condition. She has further deposed that on her cries her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law came there then they went to lodge the report (Ex.P/1) which contains her signature. In her cross-examination, the contradictions have been brought from the police report Ex.P/1 and police statement Ex.D/1. These contradictions and omissions have been proved by R.C. Jat (PW-11) who has recorded F.I.R. Ex.P/1 and police statement Ex.D/1 of this witness. 9. No doubt, there are some contradictions and omissions in her statement but not so fatal as to discredit her testimony. It is the established principle of law that F.I.R. is not the encyclopedia so as to contain every detail of the crime in it. F.I.R. is lodged only with intent to bring the police in motion. The statement given in the Court is substantive evidence. She has described in great detail how the appellant committed rape. Her evidence is trustworthy and reliable. 10. Her version is further supported by the statement of Shama Bi (PW-2), Mukhtar Ali (PW-3) and Shabbu @ Mehfooz Ali (PW-10) who have clearly stated that she told them immediately after the incident regarding the commission of rape by the appellant. Mukhtar Ali (PW-3) and Shabbu @ Mehfooz Ali (PW-10) saw him running in naked condition. In spite of searching cross examination their testimony is not shattered on the material point. Their evidence cannot be discarded only on the basis that they belong to same family. Mukhtar Ali (PW-3) and Shabbu @ Mehfooz Ali (PW-10) saw him running in naked condition. In spite of searching cross examination their testimony is not shattered on the material point. Their evidence cannot be discarded only on the basis that they belong to same family. Their evidence is also reliable and trustworthy. 11. Dr. Nalini Gond (PW-4) on 9-6-1999 at 11.00 a.m. examined victim. She found that her secondary sexual character were developed. There were marks of nails on her breast and legs which were of red colour. There were also multiple abrasions on hymn and vagina. Blood was oozing, swelling and tenderness were present. According to her opinion, the sexual intercourse has been done with victim. 12. This witness has further deposed that she also found one contusion at the head of victim and this injury was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. Duration was within 12 hours. The medical report is Ex.P/4 which contain her signature. Thus, from medical evidence it is proved that the rape was done with prosecutrix. 13. Appellant was arrested on 16-6-1999. He was also medically examined by Dr. B.B. Gupta (PW-5). He found that there was stitch wound almost around proximal one third of penis and paraphamoses present. Hence at present he was temporarily not able to perform sexual intercourse but in absence of the wound and swelling he is able to perform sexual intercourse. Thus, from this evidence, the appellant was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. 14. R.C. Jat (PW-11) prepared the spot map Ex.P/2, seized underwear baniyan vide seizure memo Ex.P/3, slide and salwar of victim vide Ex.P/8 and the slide of the appellant vide Ex.P/10. Seized articles were sent to F.S.L. Sagar vide Ex.P/11 from where the report Ex.P/12 was received. Accordingly, Article-A, B-1, B-2, C, D-1 and D-2 were found containing semen and spermatozoa. Thus, F.S.L. report also supports the prosecution case. 15. On perusal of entire evidence adduced in the case, it is manifestly clear that the prosecutrix has deposed that appellant has committed rape on her person. Her testimony is corroborated by the statement of Shama Bi (PW-2), Mukhtar Ali (PW-3) and Shabbu @ Mehfooz Ali (PW-10). Her version is further corroborated by medical evidence and F.S.L. report. Thus, it is clearly established that the appellant committed rape on her person. 16. Her testimony is corroborated by the statement of Shama Bi (PW-2), Mukhtar Ali (PW-3) and Shabbu @ Mehfooz Ali (PW-10). Her version is further corroborated by medical evidence and F.S.L. report. Thus, it is clearly established that the appellant committed rape on her person. 16. The defence of appellant is palpably wrong because no report was lodged regarding the day incident. There was no reason to caught the appellant and cause injury to his penis when he came out of his house for toilet in the night. It appears that the quarrel took place after the commission of this offence and that may be the repercussion of this incident. It does not make any difference that appellant rushed to the police station for lodging the report regarding causing marpeet by her husband and father-in-law earlier in point of time. The delay, if any, in lodging the report by victim has properly been explained by the prosecution. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The trial Court has rightly found him guilty under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and the same is hereby affirmed. 17. So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court has awarded less than the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence therefore there is no question to reduce the sentence. This appeal is meritless hence deserves to be dismissed. 18. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.