Judgment A.L. Dave J.—This appeal arises out of a judgement and order rendered by Sessions Court, Dhrangadhra, Distt. Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2005 on 09.06.2006 convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for one year. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are: 2.1 That, the prosecutrix had gone to the forest area of Dhrangadhra to collect wood about four months prior to 13.07.2005 at about 1.30 p.m. At that time, the appellant caught her and gagged her mouth and committed rape on her. After committing rape, the appellant intimidated the prosecutrix and threatened her not to disclose to any one. Hence, as per the prosecution case, after about 25 to 30 days of the incident the prosecutrix told her mother about the appellant having raped her when the prosecutrix got pain in her abdomen. Nothing happened thereafter and after sometime, again the girl was taken to Doctor and it was found that she was pregnant. The prosecutrix was then taken to Surendranagar and the fetus was aborted. An FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix with Dhrangadhra Police Station on 13.07.2005 at about 13.30 hours. It was averred in the FIR that the incident occurred about four months prior to the lodgement of the FIR. The offence was registered, investigated and charge-sheet was filed. The Magistrate Court committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Case No. 25 of 2005 came to be registered. Charge against the accused was framed at Exh. 8 for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(2) of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution led the evidence, witnesses were tested on the touchstone of cross-examination and statement of the accused-appellant under Section 13 of Cr.P.C was recorded on 27.04.2006 by the Trial Court. According to the appellant-accused, he was falsely implicated in the offence because he had demanded money from father of the prosecutrix for the work done by him. 2.2 The Trial Court, after considering rival submissions, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in establishing charge for the offence of rape and recorded conviction and awarded sentence as narrated in the earlier part of this judgement. 3. Learned advocate, Mr. 2.2 The Trial Court, after considering rival submissions, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in establishing charge for the offence of rape and recorded conviction and awarded sentence as narrated in the earlier part of this judgement. 3. Learned advocate, Mr. Barot, for the appellant, submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has not come out with a true version and if her deposition and other evidence adduced by the prosecutrix are examined, the same would make it clear that either the prosecutrix is not telling the truth or the investigation is not carried out honestly. Mr. Barot submitted that the FIR is lodged belatedly and the only explanation tendered is that the appellant had intimidated and threatened the prosecutrix. It also appears that the prosecutrix had disclosed about the alleged rape before her mother within about 25 to 30 days of the incident. It also emerges from the record that the FIR was lodged after about four months of the occurrence and once the prosecurtrix disclosing about the incident, there was no question of her or her mother remaining under the influence of the threat or intimidation allegedly meted out to the prosecutrix by the accused-appellant. It is contended by Mr. Barot that the prosecutrix has admitted that she had washed her clothes often and still on the clothes of the prosecutrix stains of semen were found. This is unexplained by the prosecution. The next contention raised by Mr Barot is that vaginal swab of the prosecutrix taken by the doctor subsequent to the lodging of the FIR i.e. after four months of the alleged incident, is found to be carrying sperms/semen of group of the appellant. This would speak volumes about the trustworthiness of the investigation and truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses. Mr. Barot submitted that these discrepancies go to the root of the prosecution case and uproot the prosecution case. 4. Learned APP, Mr. Pandya has opposed this appeal. According to him, the delay in lodgement of FIR is explained by the prosecution when the prosecutrix and her mother stated that no action could be initiated because of intimidation of the accused. Mr. Pandya further submitted that the prosecutrix must have informed her mother about the incident only when she was taken to hospital and was found to be pregnant. Mr. Mr. Pandya further submitted that the prosecutrix must have informed her mother about the incident only when she was taken to hospital and was found to be pregnant. Mr. Pandya submitted that minor discrepancies are bound to creep into the evidence and therefore, the discrepancy would, on the contrary, add to the authenticity of the evidence rather than rendering it unbelievable. Mr. Pandya submitted that no interference is called for in the judgement impugned and appeal may, therefore, be dismissed. 5. We have examined the record and proceedings in the context of rival submissions. 6. The prosecutrix is examined at Exh. 11 and in the examination-in-chief, she specifically states about the appellant having raped her in the forest area of Dhrangadhra when she had gone to collect fire wood. She also states that the appellant had intimidated and threatened her that if, she speaks to anyone about the incident, he will kill her and she was also made to take oath of Harsiddhi Mata for not disclosing the same. She further states in the examine-in-chief that she had also disclosed about the incident within about 25 to 30 days when she suddenly developed pain in the stomach. She states about being taken to the nursing home of Dr. Prabhaben and procedure of curetting having done by the doctor. She states further that muddamal article No. 1 petticoat and bush-shirt are her clothes which she was wearing at the time of incident. She states that she had washed her clothes before they were seized by police. She has been tested on the touchstone of the cross-examination and attempt was made to assail the medical examination. She states that she was examined by Dr. Gupta in the hospital. Mother of the prosecutrix, Chakuben, is examined at Exh. 12. She also says that the prosecutrix complained of pain in the stomach and, therefore, she took her to doctor. She was then taken to Dr. Gadhvi at Surendranagar. Dr. Prabhaben had informed that the prosecutrix was pregnant, which she attributed to her brother-in-law i.e. the present appellant. The witness is cross-examined and nothing special emerges from her cross-examination except that after the prosecutrix complained of pain in stomach she was taken to hospital and upon examination, Doctor disclosed that she was pregnant, and therefore, she slapped her. The chemical analysis report is at Exh. The witness is cross-examined and nothing special emerges from her cross-examination except that after the prosecutrix complained of pain in stomach she was taken to hospital and upon examination, Doctor disclosed that she was pregnant, and therefore, she slapped her. The chemical analysis report is at Exh. 44 which reveals that the petticoat carried human semen stains of group B. The samples of the blood and the semen were of group B. The vaginal swab was of group B and the semen that was brought was also of group B. 7. Thus, prima facie, it would emerge that the prosecutrix disclosed about the rape; she complained about the same to her mother; she was found to be pregnant and the clothes of the prosecutrix as well as the vaginal swab carried semen of the group of the accused but, if the evidence is properly enlarged, what emerges is thus: 7.1. The FIR was lodged after four months, although admittedly the prosecutrix had disclosed about the rape to her mother within 25 to 30 days of the incident and she was found to be pregnant. In spite of this, the prosecution witnesses have chosen not to initiate any action for another period of about three months and only after four months, they lodged the FIR. The delay, therefore, cannot be stated to have been properly explained and would adversely affect the prosecution case. 7.2. Admittedly, as per the case of the prosecutrix, she had washed the clothes that she was wearing at the time of incident. Same has been sent to FSL for examination and, surprisingly, semen stains are found on the petticoat and that too of the group of the accused. We are unable to reconcile the situation as to how semen stains and presence of sperm can be found on the clothes which were admittedly washed by the prosecutrix. Learned APP is also not in a position to explain this situation. 7.3. Thirdly, but not lastly, the vaginal swab was taken only after lodgement of FIR i.e. after about four months and still the same is found to be carrying sperms/semen of the group of the accused. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was not married then and it is nobody’s case that she had any physical relationship with anyone after the incident. 7.3. Thirdly, but not lastly, the vaginal swab was taken only after lodgement of FIR i.e. after about four months and still the same is found to be carrying sperms/semen of the group of the accused. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was not married then and it is nobody’s case that she had any physical relationship with anyone after the incident. We are again unable to understand how in the result of the vaginal swab test, presence of semen is found to be positive and no explanation is coming from the prosecution for this purpose. 7.4. The resultant effect would be that either the prosecutrix and her mother are not coming out with a true story about the incident or the investigation is defective and not honest. Presence of semen on clothes which are washed would either render the FSL report untrustworthy or the deposition of the prosecutrix as not trustworthy. Same would be the situation when the report of vaginal swab is found to be positive in respect of presence of semen. The delay in lodging FIR is also not properly explained because the only reason deposed is the alleged intimidation. The moment the prosecutrix discloses about the occurrence to her mother after about 25 to 30, days the fear emanating from intimidation disappears and thereafter also they wait for about three months time to lodge the FIR. In our view, therefore, the prosecution case is rather untrustworthy and the appellant could not have been convicted of the offence of rape. 8. The appeal is allowed. The judgement and order rendered by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra, Distt. Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2005 on 09.06.2006 is hereby set aside. The appellant is ordered to be acquitted of the charges for which he was convicted. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine paid, if any, be refunded. P P P P P