JUDGMENT: MURARI PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA, J. 1. THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 4th Court, Jalpaiguri, in Sessions Case No. 472 of 2008 relating to Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2009, under Section 354 I.P.C. whereby the appellant was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Two thousands) in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. 2. THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.06.2008 at about 10 a.m. when the de facto complainant was working in the jute field of the accused, then the latter who also came there for working in the field, suddenly forced her on the ground and opened her sari as also touched her private parts with an intent to commit rape on her. The de facto complainant raised alarm whereupon one Swapna Roy residing nearby came and the accused fled away. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by the de facto complainant Kotwali P.S. Case No. 1117 of 2008 was started and investigated. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet under Section 376/511 I.P.C was filed against the accused. The charge was duly framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. IN all 7 (Seven) witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The F.I.R as well as the sketch map were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits. Though the defence did not adduce any evidence, its case is that the elder brother of the accused had lodged written complaint against the present de facto complainant, who used to work in their house as a maid servant, in respect of theft of Rs. 7,000/- committed by her on 14.06.2008. The said case was registered as Kotwali P.S. Case No. 1113 of 2008 dated 15.06.2008 under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and the present case which was lodged on 16.06.2008 is a counter blast to the said case. 7,000/- committed by her on 14.06.2008. The said case was registered as Kotwali P.S. Case No. 1113 of 2008 dated 15.06.2008 under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and the present case which was lodged on 16.06.2008 is a counter blast to the said case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upon consideration of evidence and materials on record found that the accused was not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 / 511 I.P.C, but held that the prosecution had been able to establish the charge punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C and accordingly found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C and convicted and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. 4. THE appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the sustainability of the judgment mainly on the following grounds: - (a) That the learned Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper and correct perspective ; (b) That though the alleged incident took place on 01.06.2008. F.I.R was lodged on 16.06.2008 and this inordinate delay has not at all been explained by the prosecution; (c) That the learned Court did not at all consider, that the present case has been falsely filed by the de facto complainant in order to wriggle herself out of the previous case filed by the brother of the appellant against her in respect of theft committed by her from their house; (d) That the judgment is otherwise bad in law, and is not sustainable; P.W.1 is the de facto complainant while P.W.2 is her father-in-law and P.W.6 is her husband. P.W.3 Swapna Roy resides near the place of occurrence and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.4 resides near the house of P.W.2 while P.W.5 is the scribe who wrote the F.I.R as per dictation of P.W.1 and P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer. 5. MR. P.W.3 Swapna Roy resides near the place of occurrence and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.4 resides near the house of P.W.2 while P.W.5 is the scribe who wrote the F.I.R as per dictation of P.W.1 and P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer. 5. MR. Pravas Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that though the alleged occurrence is dated 01.06.2008, the F.I.R was lodged on 16.06.2008 and there is no explanation whatsoever as to the reason for such inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. He further submits that the time of the alleged incident has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. though P.W.1 states in her evidence to be 10 A.M. Mr. Bhattacharya further contends that P.W.1 has deposed that a "Salish" was called in their village on 15.06.2008 but accused did not turn up, while her father-in-law P.W.2 states about the "Salish" being held after 5/6 days of the incident. None of the village people who attended the said "Salish" has been examined by the prosecution nor is their any scrap of paper in this regard. Moreover, though the incident allegedly took place on 01.06.2008, P.W.1 deposes about the "Salish" being held on 15.06.2008 and P.W.2 her father-in-law states about the "Salish" being held after 5/6 days of the occurrence. Accordingly, it is quite impossible to believe that a " Salish" was in fact held but rather the deposition of P.W.1 in her cross-examination admitting that on 15.06.2008 the elder brother of the accused had lodged a written complaint against her before Kotwali P.S. on the allegation of theft of Rs.7,000/-, which has also not been denied by her husband P.W.6, assumes great significance. The argument of Mr. Pravas Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the appellant that the present F.I.R being lodged on 16.06.2008 immediately after the said written complaint was submitted by elder brother of the accused is clearly to save the de facto complainant from that case cannot be brushed aside. 6. MR. Pravas Bhattacharya now submits that though the F.I.R was lodged on 16.06.2008, the same was sent to Court on 25.06.2008 in violation of the legal mandate that the F.I.R should be sent within 24 hours. Learned Advocate for the State Mr. Ranabir Roychowdhury, in all his fairness, candidly admits that such latches on the part of the prosecution cannot in any way be condoned. Learned Advocate for the State Mr. Ranabir Roychowdhury, in all his fairness, candidly admits that such latches on the part of the prosecution cannot in any way be condoned. In fact, in my opinion the accused deserves exoneration on this very ground alone. Both in her F.I.R as well as in evidence P.W.1 has stated about raising alarm whereupon one Swapna Roy residing adjacent to the place of occurrence came and on seeing her, the accused had fled away. However, Swapna Roy has been examined as P.W.3 and she has deposed that she knows nothing about the incident nor was she interrogated by the Police. Though P.W.3 was declared hostile on the prayer of the prosecution and cross-examined, this does not help the prosecution case in any manner. 7. IN view of the discussion above and having regard to the evidence and materials on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the appeal should be allowed. In the result, the appeal succeeds. 8. THE judgment and order impugned is set aside and the appellant is discharged from the bail bond furnished by him. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent to the learned Court below for information and necessary action. Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.