JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr.Prithviraj Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Alka Bhatnagar, learned Public Prosecutor, Rajasthan. 2. The present appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dated 2.8.1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 174/89 convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further three months. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 6.7.1989 a verbal information was lodged by Ms. Leela Bai, the prosecutrix with Police Station, Jhalrapatan alleging that in the previous evening i.e. 5.7.1989 at about 5:00 p.m., while she was returning him from the market, the appellant, on the way, grabbed her from behind, fell her on the ground, throttled and assaulted her, and thereafter, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On receipt of the report, the police registered a criminal case, commenced investigation and eventually, submitted challan against the appellant under Section 376 IPC. The appellant denied the charge and was therefore, made to stand trial. The prosecution examined the prosecutrix, Leela Bai and others, including Dr.Tejveer Singh Chhadha who had medically examined her to ascertain the veracity of the allegation of rape. The appellant in course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the charge. He was however, convicted and sentenced as above. The learned counsel for the appellant dismissed the authenticity of the prosecution case, to start with, on the ground of unexplained delay in laying of the information of the incident with the police. Mr. Rajawat further contended that the manner in which the alleged incident had been narrated it is wholly unbelievable, the place of occurrence being a public thoroughfare. The learned counsel further argued that the medical evidence also totally belied the same. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, as against this, has urged that as the prosecutrix was a rustic lady totally ignorant about the consequence of delay, if any, in lodging the information with the police, the prosecution case ought not to be rejected on this count. Further, a little hesitation for the fear of ignominy and humiliation was quite natural, and thus, nothing much turns on the marginal delay of a day. Further, a little hesitation for the fear of ignominy and humiliation was quite natural, and thus, nothing much turns on the marginal delay of a day. She has further argued that the injuries found on her body and the seizure made from the place of occurrence in course of the investigation did fully corroborate the prosecutrix's otherwise cogent and cohesive narration of the incident, and thus, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for. 5. It would, at this stage, be necessary to mark the evidence of the prosecutrix, in particular, vis-a-vis the charge. 6. While more or less, reiterating the allegations made in the FIR, the prosecutrix stated that in course of the act, she suffered injuries on her neck and knees. Further, the glass bangles which she had been wearing, were also broken. In cross-examination, she admitted that she was married and had three children. She stated that the place of occurrence was full of stone chips, and because of the rains, there were water filled puddles. While admitting that she was habituated to sexual intercourse with her husband, she deposed further that while on her way home, she did not disclose the incident to any person on the way, and that, when she did so to her husband, he asked her to retire for the night, commenting that they would file the report with the police the next day. The witness further deposed that later in the evening, one Birdhilal and Devlal had visited their house, and that, they were present while she narrated the incident to her husband. 7. PW-6 Dr. Tejveer Singh Chhadha deposed that on 6.7.1989 i.e.the date on which the information was registered, he had medically examined the victim and had found nine abrasions on her head, shoulder, neck, knees and elbows. He stated that her wearing apparel contained seminal stains. Further, he stated that it was not possible to opine as to whether she had been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. In cross-examination, the witness stated that the abrasions could be caused also by a fall. No forensic science laboratory report is available to prove as to whether the wearing apparel of the victim seized by the police did in fact contain any seminal stain. 8. In cross-examination, the witness stated that the abrasions could be caused also by a fall. No forensic science laboratory report is available to prove as to whether the wearing apparel of the victim seized by the police did in fact contain any seminal stain. 8. On a consideration of the evidence of the prosecutrix as a whole read with the medical findings on her physical examination, the prosecution case, in the opinion of this Court, is not free from doubt. The incident occurred on a public way at about 5:00 p.m. in the summer month of July when there was enough light. The sequence of events, as narrated by the prosecutrix, preceding the alleged act of rape in that setting, appears to be highly improbable. Not only there has been a delay of 24 hours in loading the FIR, the indifference shown by her husband on being reported about the incident, also casts some doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. The prosecutrix was a married lady, habituated to sexual intercourse. The forensic science laboratory report endorsing the finding that her wearing apparel contained seminal stains is also not forthcoming. PW-6 Dr. Tejveer Singh Chhadha did not state with certainty that rape had been committed on her forcibly. This is of utmost significance as the prosecutrix was examined by him on the date on which the information was lodged. According to this witness, the injuries suffered by her, was possible from a fall. 9. On a cumulative consideration of all these, the possibility of falsity of the prosecution case cannot be ruled out. Having regard to the onus on the prosecution to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the state of evidence, the conviction of the appellant on the basis of testimony of the prosecutrix alone would be unsafe. 10. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is exonerated of the charge and his bail bonds stand discharged. The registry would remit the records to the learned court below forthwith.Appeal allowed. *******