JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, the appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.2.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court II at Mysore, in S.C. No. 296/1999 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 307 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo Simple imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- for each of the offences. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was as under: P.W. 1-Lingamma is the wife of the accused. Their marriage had been solemnized about 21 years prior to 5.8.1996. From out of the said wedlock, P.W. 1 gave birth to a girl child, which later died. After about 5 or 6 years of the marriage, differences arose between the couple on the ground that the accused has taken a second wife. The accused after taking the second wife, deserted P.W. 1 and therefore, she started living in her parental home at Ganayakanapura. As the accused was not providing money for her maintenance, P.W. 1 filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Court at Mandya seeking an order of monthly maintenance and after contesting the said petition, the Court directed the accused to pay monthly maintenance. Accused used to deposit the maintenance in Court and P.W. 1 was collecting the same from the Court. Even when the proceedings were going on before the jurisdictional Court at Mandya, the accused and P.W. 1 used to have physical contact. On 3.8.1996. P.W. 1 went to the Court at Mandya to collect the maintenance amount and on that day, she was told by the officials of the Court that the maintenance amount has been deposited by the accused and she could collect the same only after a week. On that day at about 2.00 p.m. the accused met P.W. 1 near the Court premises and asked her to accompany him to a village stating that he has purchased timber in the said village. On that day at about 2.00 p.m. the accused met P.W. 1 near the Court premises and asked her to accompany him to a village stating that he has purchased timber in the said village. Though she initially refused to go with him, she was persuaded to go with the accused and accordingly, from Mandya, the accused took her to T. Narasipura, where they had snacks in a hotel and from there, the accused took her in-Ganesha bus to nearby village called Bagli, where they got down from the bus and from there, she was taken near a land, where there was a dilapidated well and a pump-house. At that place, the accused annoyed by the fact that on account of P.W. 1’s persistence, warrant was issued against him and he was brought to the Court, he undressed her, had sexual intercourse with her, there after threw her into the well and by tiding her clothes to a stone, threw them also into the well and went away from that place. After some time, P.W. 1 managed to come-out of the well and walked a distance naked, hid herself behind a fence near the hospital. By that time, P.W. 6-Dharmendra and P.W. 7-Ramachandraiah residents of Bagali, came there on their way to answer the call of nature by holding a torch in their hands. At that time, she requested them to provide her clothes by explaining them of her plight. Immediately, P.W. 7 went back to his house in Bagli and brought his wife P.W. 14-Puttatayamma with a sari, petticoat and blouse and after providing the dress, brought P.W. 1 to his house. In the meanwhile, P.W. 5-Mahadevaswamy, another resident of Bagii, who had some acquaintance with P.W. 1 also came there. P.W. 1 narrated the entire incident to all of them and requested them to inform her brother and other relatives. Accordingly, P.W. 5 went to Mandya on the next day and requested P.W. 11-M.C. Sridhar, resident of Maragowdanahalli to inform P.W. 16-Ramalingaiah, brother of P.W. 1 and to request him to come over to Bagli to meet his sister. P.W. 11 made arrangements to inform P.W. 16 and others. On receipt of the information, P.Ws. 3 & 16 came to Bagli in the evening of 4.8.1996, met P.W. 1 and at that time, P.W. 1 appraised them about the incident. Thereafter, P.Ws. P.W. 11 made arrangements to inform P.W. 16 and others. On receipt of the information, P.Ws. 3 & 16 came to Bagli in the evening of 4.8.1996, met P.W. 1 and at that time, P.W. 1 appraised them about the incident. Thereafter, P.Ws. 3 & 16 went back to their village informing P.W. 1 that they would come back next day alongwith few elders of the village. On 5.8.1996. P.Ws. 3 & 16 along with few other elders came to Bagli, met P.W. 1 and thereafter took her to police station in T. Narasipura. In the police station P.W. 1 made an oral complaint about the incident, which was reduced into writing as per Ex. P1, based on which the case came to be registered and Investigation was taken-up. During the Investigation, the accused was apprehended and the statement of witnesses were recorded, After completing Investigation, charge sheet came to be laid. 3. On committal of the case, the accused appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined P.Ws. 1 to 19 and got marked Exs. P1 to P4. During cross-examination of the witnesses, the defence got marked Exs. D1 to D13. The prosecution also placed reliance on MOs. 1 to 5. 5. During his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. Later, by way of defence, he examined a witness as DW.1. The defence of accused was one of total denial and that of false implication. 6. After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal, convicted the appellant/accused for the offences for which he was charged holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 6. After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal, convicted the appellant/accused for the offences for which he was charged holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge held that the evidence of P.W. 1 as to the incident is convincing and acceptable and her evidence is corroborated on material particulars by the other circumstantial evidence of witnesses who saw her near about the scene of occurrence on 3.8.1996 and that the accused had strong motive for committing such offence and the act of accused in throwing P.W. 1 into the well after undressing her is nothing but with an intention to commit her murder, as such, he is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 364 of IPC, Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant-accused is in appeal before this Court. 7. I have heard Sri. H.C. Hanumaiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused and Sri. P. Karunakar, learned HCGP appearing for the Respondent-State. 8. 7. I have heard Sri. H.C. Hanumaiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused and Sri. P. Karunakar, learned HCGP appearing for the Respondent-State. 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that, the judgment under appeal is perverse and illegal since the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the various infirmities in the evidence of witnesses, which create great amount of doubt as to the incident as projected by P.W. 1; that the evidence of P.W. 1 is highly inconsistent and discrepant and does not gain corroboration from the medical evidence to substantiate the injury alleged to have been sustained by her and the absence of any injury on her person creates great amount of doubt about her evidence that she was thrown into the abandoned well by the accused; that the conduct on the part of the appellant-accused in not immediately reporting the matter to the police and in not going to the hospital for treatment, though there was a hospital in Bagli village itself, belies her testimony about the incident alleged; that there was inordinate delay in lodging the report to the police about the incident and since the said delay has not been explained satisfactorily, the case of the prosecution ought to have been viewed suspiciously and in the light of the several incongruity in her evidence, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused; that the fact that some litigation was pending between P.W. 1 and the accused for maintenance, may indicate some amount of motive on the part of the accused but the evidence of P.W. 1 does not satisfactorily establish the incident as alleged by her occurred and the complicity of accused; that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of P.W. 1 could not have been accepted without corroboration and that in the absence of any acceptable evidence, the testimony of P.W. 1 could not have been the sole basis to record conviction against the appellant-accused. Therefore, he sought for setting aside the judgment under appeal and prayed for acquittal of the accused. 9. Therefore, he sought for setting aside the judgment under appeal and prayed for acquittal of the accused. 9. Per contra, the learned HCGP sought to justify the judgment under appeal and contended that, the judgment does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and that the learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has recorded the finding of guilt against the appellant and therefore, the said finding does not call for interference by this Court. It is his further submission that P.W. 1 being the victim, her evidence does not require any corroboration. and minor inconsistency or discrepancy in her evidence cannot be a ground to discard her testimony, therefore, the Court below is justified in placing reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1 to hold the accused guilty of the offences for which he was charged, It is his further submission that even if some assurance short of corroboration is required to accept the evidence of P.W. 1, the evidence of other material witnesses who are resident of Bagli would lend such kind of assurance to her evidence, therefore, the Court below has not committed any error in accepting the evidence of P.W. 1, It is his further submission that though the report of the incident was lodged about two days after the incident, in the very complaint itself the complainant has come-out with explanation for such delayed presentation of the complaint, which has been rightly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, He further contended that the totality of the evidence placed by the prosecution before the trial Court, beyond reasonable doubt establish the incident as well as the complicity of the accused in the said incident and therefore, the Court below is justified in convicting the appellant, as such, well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court does not call for interference by this Court. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the submissions made fay the learned counsel on both sides, the points that arise for my consideration are,— (i) Whether the judgment under appeal suffers from perversity or illegality calling for interference by this Court? (ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in law in holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt? 11. (ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in law in holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt? 11. There is no dispute as to the relationship of the accused with P.W. 1. P.W. 1 is the wife of the accused. Their marriage had been solemnized about 21 years prior to August 1996. It is also not in dispute that after the marriage, for about 5 to 6 years, she lived with accused in the matrimonial home situated at Maragowndanahalli. During that period, P.W. 1 gave birth to a girl child, which died later. There is also no dispute that about 5 or 6 years after the marriage, P.W. 1 started living separately from her husband on the ground that the accused has taken a second wife. It is also not in dispute that alleging that the accused is not providing her any maintenance, P.W. 1 filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate, Mandya, seeking an order of monthly maintenance and in the said petition, the Court directed the accused to pay monthly maintenance to P.W. 1. It is also not in serious dispute that on 3.8.1996, the accused came to the Court at Mandya and before P.W. 1 could reach the Court, the case had been called and the accused was permitted to deposit the money and accordingly, he remitted the money to the treasury, Thereafter, P.W. 1 came to the Court at Mandya and she was informed about the deposit of money in the Court. According to the case of the prosecution, thereafter, accused met P.W. 1 and asked her to accompany him to a place where he said to have agreed to purchase some timber and though she refused to accompany him, he pursued her to go with him, for which she agreed and accordingly, both of them went to a hotel in Mandya, hadlunch and thereafter, the accused took her to T. Narasipura in a bus and from T, Narasipura to Bagli in Ganeslia bus and after getting down at Bagli, he took her near an abandoned well and dilapidated pump-house at a distance of about one kilometer to Bagli village, where the accused said to have undressed her and had intercourse with her and thereafter, by physically lifting her threw her into the well. With regard to seeing the accused and P.W. 1 together in a hotel at Mandya and taking lunch, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W. 2-Chikkamuddalah. P.W. 2 is stated to be the cousin of the accused. He has deposed about P.W. 1 filing a petition for maintenance against the accused and also about his visiting the Court at Mandya on 3.8.1996, According to him, on that day, he saw P.W. 1 and accused near the Court at Mandya and thereafter, when he went to a hotel, he saw both P.W. 1 and accused there. This part of evidence of P.W. 2 has not been seriously controverted in the cross-examination nor in the cross-examination nothing is elicited to render his evidence unacceptable. There are no reasons for P.W. 2 to depose falsehood against his own cousin. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 2 establishes the case of the prosecution about P.W. 1 and the accused seen together in the Court premises at Mandya and then in a hotel. With regard to the further incident, the whole case of the prosecution rests on the sole testimony of P.W. 1. The learned Sessions Judge during the course of the judgment under appeal has placed strong reliance on the testimony of P.W. 1 to record a finding of guilt against the accused. Therefore, the question is whether the learned Sessions Judge, having regard to the evidence on record, is justified in placing reliance on the testimony of P.W. 1 and based on her sole testimony in recording finding of guilt against the accused. No doubt it is fairly well-settled that the evidence of the victims of the atrocities against women, carries more weightage and in a case of that nature, no other independent witnesses could be expected, as such, the testimony of the victim alone could be the basis for conviction. However, before doing so, it has to be found out as to whether the testimony of the victim inspires the confidence of the Court and whether she has withstood the test of the cross-examination. However, before doing so, it has to be found out as to whether the testimony of the victim inspires the confidence of the Court and whether she has withstood the test of the cross-examination. P.W. 1 in her oral evidence has reiterated the case of the prosecution, According to her, the accused, after throwing her and her clothes into the well, went away from the place thinking that she has died and after some time, she managed to climb-up the well and walked a certain distance naked and hid herself behind a fence and waited for some one to come there. It is her further say that by that time, P.Ws. 6 & 7 came there and on her request, P.W. 7 went to his house and brought his wife with clothes and thereafter, she was taken to the house of P.W. 7. It is in her evidence that by about 8.30 or 9,00 p.m., on 3.8.1998, she was taken to the house of P.W. 7, wherein she narrated the entire incident to P.Ws. 5, 6, 7 and 14. She also said to have requested these persons to inform her brother about the incident. Thus, by about 9.00 p.m., on 3.8.1996 she was in the house of P.W. 7 in Bagli village. It is in her evidence that Bagli village is 15 kms. away from T. Narasimpura. However, the police were notinformed about the incident during that night. Assuming that on account of non-availability of conveyance from Bagli to T. Narasipura at that hour, immediately they could not inform the police, but no effort appears to have been made to report the incident to the police even on the next day. According to P.W. 5, who had some acquaintance with P.W. 1 while he was working in a hotel in Maragowndanahalli few years ago, on the request of P.W. 1 to inform her brother, he went to Mandya, took the assistance of P.W. 11 and informed P.W. 16 about the incident and about P.W. 1 staying in the house of P.W. 7 at Bagli. It is in his evidence that to go to Mandya, one has to go via T. Narasipura only, P.W. 5. who said to have gone to Mandya ie the morning of 4.8.1996 via T. Narasimpura did not choose to inform the police. It is in his evidence that to go to Mandya, one has to go via T. Narasipura only, P.W. 5. who said to have gone to Mandya ie the morning of 4.8.1996 via T. Narasimpura did not choose to inform the police. It is in the evidence that by evening of 4.8.1996, P.W. 16- bother of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3-a close relative of P.W. 1 came to the house of P.W. 7 at Bagli, met P.W. 1 and came to know about the incident from P.W. 1, Even after coming to know about the alleged incident, P.Ws. 3 and 16 appears to have not thought it fit to inform the police. Instead, according to their evidence, asking P.W. 1 to stay back in the house of P.W. 7, they returned to the village informing her that they would come back on the next day with few more eiders. It is in the further evidence of P.Ws. 3 & 16 that, by evening of 5.8.1998 they along with few other eiders of Maragowdanahalli came in a tempo to Bagli and then took P.W. 1 to the police station at T. Narasipura where P.W. 1 lodged an oral complaint about the incident, which was reduced into writing as per Ex. P1, based on which, the case came to be registered and Investigation was taken-up. Thus, the complaint as to the alleged incident was lodged about 48 hours after the alleged incident. As per the endorsement made by the learned Magistrate on the FIR-Ex. P4, the same reached him at 10.45 a.m., on 6.8.1996. Reading of the complaint-Ex. Pl indicates that there has been no explanation as to why the complaint was not lodged to the police immediately after the incident or on 4.8.1996 and as to why the complaint was lodged belatedly. Even in her evidence. P.W. 1 has not come-out with any explanation as to why there was such a delay in lodging the complaint. No doubt, mere delay in lodging the complaint by itself may not be a circumstance to doubt the case of the prosecution or to view the case of the prosecution with suspicion. Even in her evidence. P.W. 1 has not come-out with any explanation as to why there was such a delay in lodging the complaint. No doubt, mere delay in lodging the complaint by itself may not be a circumstance to doubt the case of the prosecution or to view the case of the prosecution with suspicion. However, the unexplained delay in lodging the report would be one of the circumstances to doubt the case of the prosecution if other circumstances brought on record does not satisfactorily establish the complicity of the person accused, Lodging of the report at the earliest point of time would ensure spontaneity and rules-out possibility of projecting a coloured version. Therefore, the delay in lodging the report assumes some significance, In the case on hand, P.W. 1 had all opportunity to report the matter to the police, but no effort appears to have been made in that regard. She had the assistance of the villagers of Bagli, who were strangers to both P.W. 1 and the accused, as such they had no interest in any one, therefore, they were disinterested persons. Those persons having helped P.W. 1, who was stated to be in distress, in normal circumstances would have readily responded to the request of P.W. 1 If such a request had been made to them, If really an incident of such a gravity as stated in Ex. P1 had taken place and P.W. 1 with grace of God had been saved, certainly in normal circumstances, as a prudent person, P.W. 1 would have requested P.Ws. 5 to 7 to immediately inform the police and to set the criminal law into motion. Assuming that P.W. 1 was In a state of shock during the night of 3.8.1996, by the evening of 4.8.1996, her brother-P.W. 16 and a close relative-P.W. 3 who said to have come to the house of P.W. 7 and were appraised of the incident by P.W. 1, could have reported the matter to the police, but they did not do so. This conduct on the part of P.Ws. 3 & 16 as well as P.W. 1 would be sufficient to create doubt as to the incident narrated in Ex. P1. This conduct on the part of P.Ws. 3 & 16 as well as P.W. 1 would be sufficient to create doubt as to the incident narrated in Ex. P1. Ultimately, a complaint appears to have been lodged only at about 8.00 p.m. on 5.8.1996 and the FIR issued thereon appears to have reached the Magistrate at about 10.45 a.m., on the next day. Thus, there has been inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and absolutely no explanation for the said delay is forthcoming. Thus, this unexplained delay is a strong circumstance to view the case of the prosecution with suspicion. 12. According to the evidence of P.W. 1. on account of the accused throwing her into the well, she sustained bleeding injury on the head and on the back. According to her, she hid herself behind the fence close to the hospital at Bagli. There is no serious dispute that there Is a hospital at Bagli. Even according to the evidence of P.Ws. 5 to 7, P.W. 1 had sustained injuries on the head and other parts, but very strangely she was not taken to hospital either at Bagli or at T. Narasipura. If really she had sustained bleeding injury on the head and other parts of the body, surely she would have been taken to the nearby hospital for treatment. On the other hand, according to the prosecution, after the complaint was lodged, she was taken to the hospital at T. Narasimpura, “where she was examined by P.W. 10-Dr. Apt Kumar C.K. According to evidence of P.W. 10, at about 8.15 p.m. on 5.8.96 he examined P.W. 1 who was brought by a woman police constable and at that time, she found having sustained the following injuries, (i) An abrasion over the back, linear extending from supra scapular region upto the level of L2 vertebra on the left side. (ii) Abrasion over chin and left temporal region. According to the Doctor, both the injuries were 2 to 4 days old and according to his opinion those Injuries were simple in nature. 13. Thus, the medical evidence does not corroborate the evidence of P.W. 1 about the nature and site of injury. According to the medical evidence, there were only two abrasions. If really an incident of the nature as stated in Ex. 13. Thus, the medical evidence does not corroborate the evidence of P.W. 1 about the nature and site of injury. According to the medical evidence, there were only two abrasions. If really an incident of the nature as stated in Ex. P1 and as deposed to by P.W. 1 had occurred, P.W. 1 ought to have sustained severe injuries not mere two abrasions. Even according to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it was an abandoned well, wherein bushes and shrubs had grown inside the well and there was water up to the neck level to a depth of about 4to 5 feet. So, the absence of injuries on the person of P.W. 1 as stated to by her and P.W. 1 not. going to the hospital till 8.15 p.m. on 5.8.1986 though there was a hospital in Bagli would create great amount of doubt as to the incident as spoken to by P.W. 1. 14. Except the oral say of P.W. 1 that accused brought her to Bagli and then near the well, there is no other evidence to corroborate the said fact. Though the evidence of P.W. 2 establishes the fact of P.W. 1 and accused seen together near the Court premises as well as In a hotel, his evidence does not establish as to what happened later. None of the material witnesses, who could have thrown light on this aspect of the matter have been cited, or have been examined as witnesses, Even according to P.W. 1, she was brought from Mandya to T. Narasipura in a bus and then from T. Narasipura to Bagli In another bus. However, the conductor of these busses have not been examined to establish that they travelled together from Mandya to T. Narasipura and then to Bagli. None of the co-passengers have also been examined. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence to corroborate the say of P.W. 1 about the accused bringing her to Mandya to Bagli, According to P.W. 1, she and accused got down from the bus in the bus stop in Bagli at about 5,30 p.m. and from there they walked up to the well at a distance of about one kilometer from Bagli. However, no one is examined to establish the fact of accused and P.W. 1 seen together in Bagli, The evidence of P.W. 5 to some extent indicates that he knew P.W. 1 while he was working in a hotel in Maragowndanahalli. The evidence of P.W. 14 Puttatayamma, wife of P.W. 7 indicates that P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 were known to each other from the time when P.W. 5 was running a hotel in Maragowndanahalli. It is also in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that P.W. 1 on certain occasions was seen in the hotel of P.W. 5 at Bagli, Therefore, it is not as if P.W. 1 was a total stranger in Bagli though accused appears to be a stranger to the residents of Bagli Village. However, no one has seen P.W. 1 and accused together in Bagli on 3.8.1996. Therefore, in the background of the unexplained delay in lodging the report, P.W. 1 not subjecting herself to the medical examination immediately after the incident though there was a hospital at Bagli, absence of any serious injuries on her person and in the absence of any one having seen P.W. 1 and accused together in Bagli village in the evening of 8.8.1996 though they said to have alighted from the bus in the bus stand at Bagli at 5.30 p.m., are the circumstances which render the testimony of P.W. 1 highly suspicious. These circumstances create doubt about the very incident and even if the incident had occurred, it does not satisfactorily establish the complicity of the accused for such incident. No doubt, having regard to the filing of a petition for maintenance and the Court directing the accused to pay maintenance, it can be said that there was motive for the accused to commit the said offence. However, the motive by itself cannot be a factor to record a finding regarding his complicity in the incident alleged. The motive is one of the circumstances and if there are other circumstances, which establish his complicity, certainly the Court would be justified in placing reliance on the circumstances of motive, In the case on hand, since the various circumstances pointed-out supra, creates great amount of doubt as to the very happening of the incident as also the complicity of the accused, motive does not assume much significance. 15. 15. Perusal of the judgment under appeal indicates that the learned Sessions Judge has not adverted himself to the various circumstances noted supra, Instead he has proceeded to accept the evidence of P.W. 1 as a whole and has recorded finding of guilt. There is no critical assessment of evidence in the light of the answers elicited in the cross-examination and the inconsistency in the evidence of other witnesses, as also the conduct of P.W. 1. Therefore, the judgment of the Court below holding the appellant guilty of the offence cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 16. At this state, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the maintenance proceedings, the parties have reached a settlement wherein, the appellant-accused has paid a lump-sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to P.W. 1 towards her maintenance and has also given her a small piece of land measuring about two guntas to enable her to construct a house for her residence, A copy of the joint memo filed before the Court of the JMFC at Mandya was made available for the perusal of this Court, The complainant- P.W. 1, is also present before the Court in-person and on being questioned by the learned High Court Government Pleader, she admitted the fact of she having received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her husband, as stated in the joint memo. Having regard to the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.2.2005 in S.C. No. 296/1999 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court II at Mysore is hereby set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The bail and surety bonds executed by the appellant and his surety are ordered to be discharged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant-accused is ordered to be refunded to him.