Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional Sessions judge, Beohari, District Shahdol in S. T. No. 202/2000, decided on 02. 08. 01. ( 2. ) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 354 of ipc and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for five months, by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, the victim girl aged about six years was studying in primary school, village Bartua, where the appellant was a school teacher at the relevant time. On 1. 8. 94 at about 1 oclock in the noon, appellant took the victim girl to his house on the pretext of giving her prasad and attempted to commit rape on her. The underwear of the girl was also torn in the incident. The victim girl narrated the incident to her mother. The father of the victim girl was not at home at the time of incident; when he came back to the village, the matter was reported to the Police after 6-7 days by the grand-father of the victim. On the basis of report lodged by teerath Prasad, an offence was registered against the appellant at Police Station Jaisingh Nagar, Shahdol and was investigated. The victim girl was sent for medical examination. Her underwear was seized by the Police. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under Section 376/511 of IPC and was put to trial. ( 4. ) APPELLANT denied the charges framed against him under Section 376, alternatively under section 376/511 of IPC and pleaded innocence and false implication due to enmity. ( 5. ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, came to hold that due to negative medical evidence, the charges under section 376, 376/511 of IPC were not proved against the appellant beyond doubt; however, he was found guilty for committing offence under Section 354 of IPC, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court gravely erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of inconsistent and unreliable testimony of related witnesses despite delayed FIR and negative medical evidence. ( 7. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court gravely erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of inconsistent and unreliable testimony of related witnesses despite delayed FIR and negative medical evidence. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. ( 8. ) PERUSED the evidence on record. The victim girl (P. W-6) is a child witness, who was six years of age at the time of incident. Her approximate age at the time of deposition was recorded as ten years. The victim (P. W-6) deposed in her evidence that at the relevant time about 12 oclock in the noon when she was returning from her school and going home, appellant Ramadhar took her inside his house by holding her hand, closed the doors, took out her underwear and inserted his penis into her vagina "esjh ph mrkj dj viuk fyax esjh iskkc dh txg when she screamed, appellant turned her out of his house. Then she went to her home and narrated the incident to her mother. ( 9. ) THE aforesaid evidence of the victim (P. W-6)however, does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. Dr. Shanti Chahal (P. W-10), who examined the victim, found no injury or bleeding on her external examination. Even upon the examination of her genitals, no injury, no bleeding and no hymen tear was seen by the doctor (P. W-10), which is also reflected from her medical report (Ex. P-6 ). ( 10. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant emphatically urged that when the evidence of victim (P. W-6) about the penetration was not supported by medical evidence, she was not a trustworthy witness and the trial court fell in error in convicting the appellant under Section 354 of IPC on the same evidence of the girl, which was excluded from consideration for holding him guilty for rape or attempting to commit rape on the victim girl. ( 11. ) UPON close scrutiny of the entire evidence of the victim (P. W-6), it is found that although she deposed that appellant had inserted his penis one inch deep into her vagina, she categorically admitted that there was no bleeding, nor she felt any pain and there was no injury on her body. ( 11. ) UPON close scrutiny of the entire evidence of the victim (P. W-6), it is found that although she deposed that appellant had inserted his penis one inch deep into her vagina, she categorically admitted that there was no bleeding, nor she felt any pain and there was no injury on her body. She further admitted in her cross-examination that she did not mention about penetration during her police statement, as she did not understand it at that time, and she understood it only later, which indicates that the girl (P. W-6) was tutored to give such a version. When a child witness is tutored, her evidence obviously becomes doubtful and tainted. Needless to add that when admittedly there was no injury or bleeding on her genitals, as also evident from the medical evidence of Dr. Shanti Chahal (P. W-10), her statement, that appellant had inserted his penis one inch deep into her vagina, becomes unacceptable and unreliable. When such evidence of victim (P. W-6) is found to be tutored, tainted and unreliable, there remains nothing in her evidence to assume or conclude that appellant made any indecent assault on the girl with intent to outrage her modesty. ( 12. ) MOREOVER, the version of the alleged incident given by the parents of the victim, namely, Saraswati Prasad (P. W-4), pratibha (P. W-5) and grand-father Teerath Prasad (P. W-8), as narrated to them by the victim, is also found to be discrepant and inconsistent. According to mother of the victim, Pratibha (P. W-5), her daughter had told her that appellant had gagged her mouth and the appellant had also discharged after penetration, which appears to be quite exaggerated version. As against this, Teerath Prasad (P. W-8), the grand-father of the victim deposed in his evidence that the girl had told him that appellant had only embraced her, whereas according to P. W-4 saraswati Prasad, the father of the victim, she had told him that appellant lay upon her. Thus, all these three witnesses have given different versions about the narration of the incident by the victim (P. W-6), which cast cloud of suspicion over the entire episode. ( 13. ) BESIDES, the FIR of the incident was also lodged after 6-7 days. Teerath Prasad (P. W-8), who lodged the report (Ex. Thus, all these three witnesses have given different versions about the narration of the incident by the victim (P. W-6), which cast cloud of suspicion over the entire episode. ( 13. ) BESIDES, the FIR of the incident was also lodged after 6-7 days. Teerath Prasad (P. W-8), who lodged the report (Ex. P-3) at Police Station Jaisingh Nagar, has not been able to give any explanation for delay in lodging the FIR, although he was very much present in the town on the day of alleged incident. Both Saraswati Prasad (P. W-4) and Pratibha (P. W-5), the parents of the victim, admitted in their evidence that saraswati Prasad had returned back from Shahdol next day after the incident, yet the report was lodged afte six days. On the other hand, both Saraswati Prasad (P. W-4) and Pratibha (P. W-5) denied that the report was lodged after seven days and they claimed that it was lodged next day, though it clearly transpires from the evidence of A. S. I. M. L. Sharma (P. W-9) that the FIR was recorded on 7. 8. 94 and the incident was dated 1. 8. 94. A perusal of the FIR (Ex. P-3) also reveals that the date of incident is mentioned there as 1. 8. 94, whereas the FIR was recorded on 7. 8. 94. ( 14. ) NO doubt, the delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal in every case, particularly in sexual offences, but the delay has to be satisfactorily explained. In the instant case, however, the delay of 6-7 days in lodging the FIR has not been explained at all. Although, Pratibha (P. W-5) has tried to say that her father-in-law (Teerath Prasad), though present on the day of incident, did not report the matter to the Police on the same day, as he was old and disabled, but this reason does not appear to be cogent and acceptable, as the FIR of the incident was lodged by Teerath Prasad (P. W-8) himself. It also appears quite strange that Teerath Prasad (P. W-8), who was admittedly a retired Head Constable, did not immediately report the matter to the Police even after knowing shortly that such an incident had occurred with his grand-daughter of tender age and also failed to give any reason for not reporting the incident same day, as is evident from para 4 of his deposition. ( 15. ( 15. ) IN view of the aforesaid infirmities, particularly lack of credibility of the evidence of child witness (P. W-6), it would not be safe to maintain the conviction of the appellant under section 354 of IPC. Appellant is certainly entitled to benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case and deserves to be acquitted. ( 16. ) APPEAL is accordingly allowed. The conviction of the appellant and impugned sentence awarded to him under Section 354 of IPC are hereby set aside. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.