Judgment :- 1. The Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 04.02.2005, made in S.C.No.577 of 2000, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli District, whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 376 r/w 511 of I.P.C. 2. As per the prosecution case and the charge framed, it is revealed that on 30.08.1998 at about s10.30 p.m. at Pulavanoor Village, Nainar Koil Street, infront of the house of the witness P.W.4 Chellappa @ Soochamudaiyan, while the victim girl P.W.1 Sakthi @ Sakthi Selvam aged about 13 years was sleeping, the appellant/accused Paramasivan tress passed into the thatched shed with an intention of committing rape on the victim girl, caused the offence. However, the complaint was given only on 19.09.1998 at 17 Hrs and the FIR was received by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudhram only on 21.09.1998. 3. It is seen that the charge was framed against the appellant/accused under Section 376 of I.P.C and after furnishing copies of documents relied on by the prosecution under Section 207 Cr.P.C, as the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty, the case was posted for trial. On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined, the alleged victim girl Sakthi @ Sakthiselvam was also examined as P.W.1, apart from marking Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and M.Os.1 to 3. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the appellant / accused before the trial Court. 4. As per the prosecution case, the appellant / accused was residing adjacent to the house of P.W.1, the prosecutrix and she attained puberty, 13 days prior to the alleged occurrence. She was coolie, doing Beedi rolling job for her livelihood. After finishing her work on 19.09.1998, she went to bed at about 10.30 p.m. As she had attained puberty, 13 days prior to the occurrence, she was sleeping in a thatched shed attached to the house of the prosecutrix. While she was sleeping in the thatched shed, at about 10.30 hours, the accused tresspassed into the thatched shed. After finishing her work on 19.09.1998, she went to bed at about 10.30 p.m. As she had attained puberty, 13 days prior to the occurrence, she was sleeping in a thatched shed attached to the house of the prosecutrix. While she was sleeping in the thatched shed, at about 10.30 hours, the accused tresspassed into the thatched shed. The prosecutrix felt that somebody was pressing on her body and she found that the accused was laying on her body, closed her mouth with a cloth and committed rape, on hearing her noise, immediately her parents came to the scene of occurrence, however, the appellant/accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Immediately her parents informed the same to one Madasamy (P.W.8) and on the next Tuesday, a complaint was given before the Police station, as the appellant / accused was not available in the village for the panchayat. According to P.W.1, the police did not take any action, based on the complaint given by her. Hence, a petition was given before the District Collector, then she gave a second representation before the District Collector. According to P.W.1, she handed over her blouse (M.O.1) and petty coat (M.O.2) and her statement given before the police was marked as Ex.P.1. In the cross-examination, she has not stated that the police had not taken any action on the earlier complaint given by her and no receipt was given by the police for the alleged complaint given by her earlier. 5. P.W.2 is the Doctor specialist in radiologist, according to him, he conducted radiology test and found that the appellant/accused was aged about 21 years. P.W.3 is a lady Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Ambai, on the request of the Judicial Magistrate she conducted medical test on the victim girl, on 20.09.1998 at about 5.20 p.m. The alleged victim girl P.W.1 had informed the Doctor that on 30.08.1998 at about 10.30 p.m, a known person to her committed rape on her. However, while examining the P.W.1, she could find no injury on her vagina and the hymen was found intact and she could not find any other injury on the body of P.W.1. While conducting the medical test, the vaginal smear was taken and sent, however, no semen was found. The lady Doctor opined that the alleged victim girl, P.W.1 was not subjected to rape. 6. While conducting the medical test, the vaginal smear was taken and sent, however, no semen was found. The lady Doctor opined that the alleged victim girl, P.W.1 was not subjected to rape. 6. The requisition letter sent by the Judicial Magistrate was marked as Ex.P.3 and the certificate issued by the Doctor was marked as Ex.P.4, chemical analysis report was marked as Ex.P.5 on the side of the prosecution. 7. It is seen that P.W.3, lady doctor has specifically stated that the alleged victim girl P.W.1 was not subjected to sexual intercourse, however, she could not say whether there was any attempt to commit rape on her or not.P.W.4 is the father of P.W.1, P.W.5 is the witness for observation mahazar, who has signed Ex.P.6 as a witness. P.W.6 has deposed that she does not know anything about the alleged occurrence. 8. P.W.7 is a male doctor, deposed evidence since the other doctor Ramasamy, who conducted test on the appellant / accused to decide his potentiality was suffering from neck pain and got surgery and could not attend the court for deposing the evidence. P.W.7 has deposed that the certificate was issued by the doctor Ramasamy and he identified the certificate and the requisition letter sent by the Judicial Magistrate was marked as Ex.P.7, through the witness. 9. The other witness, P.W.8 has deposed evidence that he had visited the scene of occurrence, only after the alleged occurrence. P.W.9 is the radiologist attached to Tiruneveli Medical College Hospital, though radiology test was conducted by one Doctor Duraipandian, P.W.9 another doctor was examined and the requisition letter Ex.P.9 and certificate Ex.P.10 issued by the said Doctor were marked only through P.W.9. 10. According to P.W.10 Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station, the case was registered in Crime No.166 of 1998 by the then Inspector of Police, one Velayutham and the FIR was also sent to the Judicial Magistrate Court by him, however, he died subsequently, hence based on the case file and the records available, he deposed the evidence. 11. In the cross-examination P.W.10 has deposed that the earlier Inspector Velayutham was not known to him. After completing the investigation charge sheet was filed by the earlier Inspector Velayutham. It is seen that the appellant/accused was questioned under Section 313(1) Cr.P.C, on the incriminating evidence deposed against him by the prosecution witness against him. 12. 11. In the cross-examination P.W.10 has deposed that the earlier Inspector Velayutham was not known to him. After completing the investigation charge sheet was filed by the earlier Inspector Velayutham. It is seen that the appellant/accused was questioned under Section 313(1) Cr.P.C, on the incriminating evidence deposed against him by the prosecution witness against him. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also contended that the prosecutrix was also reported dead subsequently, due to some ailment, learned Government Advocate has not disputed the aforesaid fact. 13. It is seen that the complaint Ex.P.1 was given only on 19.09.2008, though the occurrence is said to have taken place on 30.08.1998. As per the complaint given by the prosecutrix, the appellant/accused committed an offence of rape, punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. The prosecutrix has narrated the occurrence in the complaint. It is a settled proposition of law that court can convict an accused under Section 376 IPC, solely based on the evidence of the prosecutrix, if the same is trustworthy and supported by medical evidence. In the instant case, the Doctor who examined the alleged victim, P.W.1, found her with no external injuries, no foreign hair was present on her genital part and the hymen of the victim was found intact. Therefore, the lady doctor has opined that there could have been no possibility of rape being committed on her. 14. As the averments in the complaint is against the medical evidence, the Court has to consider the evidence of the prosecutrix trustworthy to convict the accused, under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC, based on the evidence. In the instant case, except the alleged victim, P.W.1, there is no other witness to establish the occurrence. Even in the absence of eye witness, based on circumstantial evidence, court can convict the accused, if the circumstantial evidence is cogent without any break in the chain of events and trustworthy to establish the guilt, as per the prosecution case. 15. In the instant case the evidence of P.W.1 and the medical evidence adduced by the lady doctor P.W.3, who examined the prosecutrix are vital piece of evidence to decide the case. The evidence of the doctor, P.W.3, shows that the complaint given by P.W.1 could not be true. 16. 15. In the instant case the evidence of P.W.1 and the medical evidence adduced by the lady doctor P.W.3, who examined the prosecutrix are vital piece of evidence to decide the case. The evidence of the doctor, P.W.3, shows that the complaint given by P.W.1 could not be true. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not established the guilt against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence of P.W.1 is contra to medical evidence. According to him, there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 19 days in preferring criminal complaint and further, the medical evidence shows that the alleged occurrence as narrated by the prosecutrix would not be true, other witnesses could not speak about the occurrence and accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant pleaded for allowing this appeal. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on the following decisions: i) Vimal Suresh Kamble v Chaluverapinake apal S.P. and another, 2003 SCC(Cri) 596 ii)Nasru v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Cri.L.J. 954 iii) Vijay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2006 Crl.L.J.112 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P.and another reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 596, that under Section 376 I.P.C. for an offence of rape, though conviction could be possible on reliable sole testimony of the prosecutrix, it is made clear that the evidence of the prosecutrix shall inspire confidence and appears to be natural and truthful and in such circumstance, the evidence of the prosecutrix would be sufficient to base the conviction. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "21...We, therefore, concur with the view of the High Court that a conviction cannot be safely based upon the evidence of the prosecutrix alone. It is no doubt true that in law the conviction of an accused on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix alone is permissible, but that is in a case where the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful. The evidence of the prosecutrix in this case is not of such quality and there is no other evidence on record which may even lend some assurance, short of corroboration that she is making a truthful statement. We, therefore, find no reason to disagree with the finding of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. The evidence of the prosecutrix in this case is not of such quality and there is no other evidence on record which may even lend some assurance, short of corroboration that she is making a truthful statement. We, therefore, find no reason to disagree with the finding of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the High Court is a possible, reasonable view of the evidence on record and therefore, warrants no interference..." 18. In Aman Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in 2004 (4) SCC 379 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus: "11. In order to find an accused guilty of an attempt with intent to commit a rape, court has to be satisfied that the accused, when he laid hold of the prosecutrix, not only desired to gratify his passions upon her person, but that he intended to do so at all events, and notwithstanding any resistance on her part. Indecent assaults are often magnified into attempts at rape. In order to come to a conclusion that the conduct of the accused was indicative of a determination to gratify his passion at all events, and in spite of all resistance, materials must exist. Surrounding circumstances many times throw beacon light on that aspect." 19. In Nasru vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2006 Crl.L.J 954, a case relating to Rajasthan High Court, the accused therein alleged to have caught hold of prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly, however, her statement was neither corroborated by medical evidence, nor corroborated by the statement of her parents, hence the accused was acquitted. In the instant case, also the evidence of P.W.1 is not supported by medical evidence and also not corroborated by any other acceptable evidence. 20. In Vijay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2006 Crl.L.J 112, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the accused and set aside the conviction, on the ground that the evidence of the prosecutrix was not supported by medical evidence and other evidences. In the instant case, admittedly there is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint for which there is no satisfactorily explanation on the side of the prosecution and further the evidence of prosecutrix is not supported by the medical evidence and there is no corroborative evidence to establish the guilty of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, admittedly there is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint for which there is no satisfactorily explanation on the side of the prosecution and further the evidence of prosecutrix is not supported by the medical evidence and there is no corroborative evidence to establish the guilty of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the light of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various other High Courts, I am of the view the prosecution has not established the guilt against the appellant / accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant / accused by the court below is set aside. The bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid by the appellant shall be refunded forthwith.