JUDGMENT Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court record. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant Raju Yadav alias Mukesh against the judgment and order dated 6.4.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Room No. 9, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 766 of 2006 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo seven years simple imprisonment and also with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation of two months additional imprisonment. 3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that on 6.8.2005 at 20: 05 hours, the complainant Jai Pal Maurya lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station Manak Nagar, District Lucknow to the effect that in the intervening night of 5/6.8.2005 at about 3: 00 a.m. when he got up to ease himself then he found that her minor daughter aged about 14 years (hereinafter referred as victim) was not on her bed. Then he started her search. He raised suspicion on appellant as he was following her for a long period. When he went to the hut of Raju Yadav then he found Raju Yadav was lying on bed with her daughter and seeing the complainant he ran away. When the complainant enquired his daughter then she told that Raju Yadav brought her there on the pretext of giving Rs. 100/- and committed rape with her. She also told that Raju Yadav was having such relation for the last several days. She further stated that apart from Raju Yadav, one Varun Kumar also used to establish physical relations on the pretext of giving her money. After deciding that F.I.R. should be lodged, he went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. 4. This F.I.R. was lodged against appellant Raju Yadav alias Mukesh and one Varun Kumar in Police Station Manak Nagar, District Lucknow, which was registered at case crime no. 63 of 2005. Underwear of victim was taken into custody and was sealed and its memo was prepared. Both the accused persons were arrested and their underwears were also taken into custody and memo was prepared and were sent for chemical examination. However, there is no chemical examination report on record. During investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence. Underwear of victim was taken into custody and was sealed and its memo was prepared. Both the accused persons were arrested and their underwears were also taken into custody and memo was prepared and were sent for chemical examination. However, there is no chemical examination report on record. During investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence. The victim was medically examined on 7.8.2005 at Awanti Bai Hospital, Lucknow. 5. In the medical examination, axillary and pubic hairs were present. Breast were developed. Twenty weeks fetus was found present. No mark of injury was seen on any part of the body. In her external examination, no mark of injury was found on her private part. Hymen was old torn and healed. Uterus was also 20 weeks size. Vaginal smear was taken for pathological test and X-ray was advised for determination of her age. On the basis of x-ray report, her age was found around 16 years and she was having 20 weeks alive pregnancy. No definite opinion regarding rape was given. 6. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons. Accused Varun Kumar was declared to be juvenile in conflict with law, therefore, his case was separated. In this sessions trial only accused Raju Yadav has faced trial. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Jai Pal Maurya, the complainant, PW-2 Victim, PW-3 Dr. Saulat Rizvi, Medical Officer, PW-4 lady Constable 628 Radha Sharma, who had taken the victim for medical examination. PW-5 Dr. Someshwar Puri, Radiologist, PW-6 S.I. Satendra Nath Mishra, Investigating Officer of the case. 8. The defence of the accused was that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any rape with the victim. The witnesses have given false evidence. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. 9. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the appellant as above, hence the instant appeal. 10. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that underwears of the victim and of the accused persons, as per prosecution case, were sent for medical examination. However, the prosecution has withheld report of the Forensic Laboratory, which gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution. The prosecutrix was found to be pregnant by 20 weeks, which shows that she was a consenting party. However, the prosecution has withheld report of the Forensic Laboratory, which gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution. The prosecutrix was found to be pregnant by 20 weeks, which shows that she was a consenting party. It is further submitted that Medical Officer opined the age of the victim to be 16 years and the trial court gave benefit of variation of age to the prosecution and not to the accused appellant, which was against the settled principle of law. No injury was found on the private part or on the body of the victim. It is further submitted that as per the evidence of the witnesses, mother of the victim has also seen the occurrence but she has been withheld. The evidence of the witnesses was so contradictory that the same cannot be treated to be reliable. There was no source of light. It is further submitted that the victim has changed the place of occurrence in her evidence and has admitted that her pregnancy was known to her parents and all these facts established that the victim was aged more than 16 years and she was a consenting party. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged after a considerable delay of several hours. 11. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the victim was minor. Her consent was procured on the pretext of giving her money so her consent cannot be said to be voluntary and cannot be treated to be a valid consent. It is further submitted that she was minor, therefore, her consent was of no consequence and the trial court has rightly convicted appellant Raju Yadav and as such, the finding of the trial court needs no interference. 12. F.I.R. in every criminal case is a very important document though it is not a substantive piece of evidence but it assumes great importance in the appreciation of evidence. A prompt F.I.R. lends credence to the prosecution story because in such cases chances of improvement or consultation stands excluded. But on the contrary, a delayed F.I.R. with no valid explanation gives rise to chances of improvement in the prosecution case and creates doubt about correctness of the prosecution version, provided the delay remains unexplained. 13. A prompt F.I.R. lends credence to the prosecution story because in such cases chances of improvement or consultation stands excluded. But on the contrary, a delayed F.I.R. with no valid explanation gives rise to chances of improvement in the prosecution case and creates doubt about correctness of the prosecution version, provided the delay remains unexplained. 13. It is a case of rape, therefore, different approach has to be adopted regarding delay in F.I.R. Before reporting such cases to the police, the complainant side has to undergo a long thought process, whether the F.I.R. should be lodged or not? Because by lodging the F.I.R., the stigma, which is cast upon the victim is much higher and remains attached with her through out her life. So there is reluctance in reporting such nature of cases. In the F.I.R. the complainant has explained the delay in following words ^^yksd ykt ds dkj.k dkQh lksp fopkj fd;k ysfdu vc eSa viuh yM+dh ds lkFk Fkkus vk;k gwWA** This statement of the complainant shows that the complainant side considered whether the F.I.R. should be lodged or not because it involved the future life of the victim. 14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh Vs. Prem Singh reported in 2009 (1) SCC 420 has considered this aspect and has held in para 6 as under: - "6. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition- bound society prevalent in India, more particularly rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR. In that score, learned counsel for the appellant is right that the High Court has lost sight of this vital distinction." In another case of Sri Narayan Saha and Another Vs. State of Tripura reported in (2004) 7 SCC 775 . The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 8 has held as under: - "In India if the prosecutrix happened to be a married person, she will not do anything without informing her husband. State of Tripura reported in (2004) 7 SCC 775 . The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 8 has held as under: - "In India if the prosecutrix happened to be a married person, she will not do anything without informing her husband. Merely because the complaint was lodged less than promptly, does not raise the question that the complaint was false. The reluctance to go to the police is because of society's attitude towards such women. It casts doubt and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathy. Therefore, the delay in lodging complaint in such cases does not necessarily indicate that her version is false." 15. In view of the aforesaid fact situation and keeping in view the pronouncement of Hon'ble the Apex Court mentioned-above, this Court is of the considered view that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. stands explained and it cannot be taken as a ground, by itself, to throw away the prosecution story. 16. As to what value should be attached to the evidence of a victim of rape, has been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Babu Meena reported in (2013) 4 SCC 206 and Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed in para 9 as under: - "We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Jain that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable and for that no corroboration is required. It has often been said that oral testimony can be classified into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and, (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In case of wholly reliable testimony of a single witness, the conviction can be founded without corroboration. This principle applies with greater vigour in case the nature of offence is such that it is committed in seclusion. In case prosecution is based on wholly unreliable testimony of a single witness, the court has no option than to acquit the accused." 17. Now evidence of the witnesses has to be considered. 18. PW-1 Jai Pal Maurya, who is complainant of the case, has supported the prosecution story. He has stated that when he reached the hut of appellant Raju Yadav, then Raju Yadav was lying on the bed with the victim. Now evidence of the witnesses has to be considered. 18. PW-1 Jai Pal Maurya, who is complainant of the case, has supported the prosecution story. He has stated that when he reached the hut of appellant Raju Yadav, then Raju Yadav was lying on the bed with the victim. On seeing the complainant, he ran away and the victim disclosed that on the pretext of giving Rs. 100/-, Raju Yadav has committed rape with her and he has also supported the allegations against co-accused Varun Kumar and also the fact that even on earlier occasion also Raju Yadav has committed rape with her. In his cross examination, this witness has stated that the absence of the victim on her bed was first noticed by his wife and thereafter she told him that victim was not on her bed. His wife also told him that the victim had gone to the bush near the hut of Raju Yadav to ease herself and from-there Raju Yadav along with one other boy had taken the victim. This witness has also stated that a blow with danda was given to her but who gave her that blow could not be noticed by her. Thereafter her wife came back and told him about the incident then he went in search of the victim. After about one hour of search, the victim was found in the hut of appellant, it was 4: 00 a.m. at that time. He has further stated that that on the fateful night, the victim was lying with his wife and the hut of Raju Yadav is situated at a distance of about 20 meters from his house. He has further stated that parents of Raju Yadav were present out of the hut and awakened by that time. Thereafter he immediately gave information to the police then the police came on Jeep and Raju Yadav was immediately arrested by the police. When he gave this information to the police then, the police was on patrol duty and he met the police near his hut. At that time Raju Yadav was arrested. When wife of complainant gave the information that appellant Raju Yadav has taken her daughter then there was no question of his not going to the hut of Raju immediately. When he gave this information to the police then, the police was on patrol duty and he met the police near his hut. At that time Raju Yadav was arrested. When wife of complainant gave the information that appellant Raju Yadav has taken her daughter then there was no question of his not going to the hut of Raju immediately. But he reached their after one hour while admittedly hut of Raju Yadav was at a distance of only twenty paces from their residence. No effort was made by the wife of the complainant to inform the parents of Raju Yadav who were on their bed out of their hut. These questions remains unexplained. 19. In the pathological report of the victim, the doctor report her age to be about 16 years. She was found pregnant by 20 weeks. The case of the prosecution is that the accused appellant on the pretext of giving her money used to establish physical relations with her. As per the prosecution story, when the complainant reached at the place of occurrence, then the victim was lying with the appellant. The distance of the house of the appellant from the house of the victim was about 20 yards. As per the version of F.I.R., in the intervening night, the complainant got up at about 3: 00 a.m., he found that the victim was not on her bed then he started search of his daughter. On this point PW-1 in his cross examination has stated that in the fateful night, he was sleeping outside of his hut and at that time, her wife was taking her food. She for the first time has seen that the victim was not on her bed. Thereafter she told it to the complainant and when he entered into the house of appellant Raju, on the basis of suspicion, then he found her daughter there. This witness has also stated that her wife told him that the victim had gone to ease herself near the bush from there she was lifted by appellant Raju with the help of one co-accused. 20. As per the version of the F.I.R., and also according to the statement of the complainant, the complainant had suspicion on accused Raju. This witness has also stated that her wife told him that the victim had gone to ease herself near the bush from there she was lifted by appellant Raju with the help of one co-accused. 20. As per the version of the F.I.R., and also according to the statement of the complainant, the complainant had suspicion on accused Raju. His house was situated only at the distance of 20 yards but he has stated in his cross examination that after about one hour of search he could find out the victim in the hut of Raju. He has stated that in that night, the victim was putting on Kurta and Paijama. 21. PW-2 is the victim herself. She has stated that on the pretext of giving Rs. 100/- physical relations were established by appellant Raju. She was completely undressed and thereafter he undressed himself and had sexual intercourse with her. She has stated in her examination in chief that in the night appellant Raju came to her and called her out of the house. When she came out then he took her into his hut and thereafter this incident took place. She has further stated that appellant Raju on several occasions had established physical relations with her. She was taken forcibly to the hut by him. She has further stated in her cross examination that she was sleeping with her mother. She has stated that at that time, she was putting on a frock. She has admitted that the fact that she was pregnant was known to her parents. In her cross examination, she has stated that she had gone to the hut of Raju under the greed of getting money from him, which was not paid to her. She has also stated that ^^jktw ds vykok vkSj dksbZ Hkh esjs lkFk cqjk dke ugha djrk FkkA** . At another place, she has stated that on the date of occurrence, she met with Raju for the first time and for the first time, Raju committed rape with her. She has also stated that when Raju raped on her, she was pregnant with six months. Entire statements of the victim, taken as whole, shows that she voluntarily went with the accused under the greed of taking money. She has also stated that when Raju raped on her, she was pregnant with six months. Entire statements of the victim, taken as whole, shows that she voluntarily went with the accused under the greed of taking money. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the victim was taken to the hut by the accused for some other purpose and there rape was committed with her or money was paid to her for any other purpose. But the prosecution has come with the definite case that she was given money for establishing physical relations, for which she gave her consent. The trial court has held her age to be 14 years accordingly, the trial court found that the consent was of no consequence as she was minor. 22. Law is settled on the point that if two views are possible, then the one beneficial to the accused must be followed. The doctor, in the medical evidence, has reported the age of the victim to be 16 years, therefore, she had attained the age of giving consent. 23. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the victim used to establish physical relation with appellant Raju but at one place she has stated that on that date she met with the appellant for the first time. The manner in which she was found lying with the appellant without making any noise shows that she was a consenting party. There are so many contradiction in the prosecution evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, which goes to the root of the case. Mother of the victim, was also an important witness because as per the evidence of PW-1, she had seen the accused forcibly taking away the victim and she was also given a blow with danda by one of the accused but she has been withheld by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Apart from it, the chemical analysis report of the underwears has also been withheld without any explanation, which gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution. After scrutinizing the entire evidence of the prosecutrix, this Court is of the considered view that her evidence does not fall within the category of wholly reliable. The observation of the trial court is contrary to settled principles of appreciation of evidence and is sustainable under law. 24. After scrutinizing the entire evidence of the prosecutrix, this Court is of the considered view that her evidence does not fall within the category of wholly reliable. The observation of the trial court is contrary to settled principles of appreciation of evidence and is sustainable under law. 24. In view of the discussion made above, this appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 6.4.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Room No. 9, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 766 of 2006 is hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail is cancelled and sureties discharged. 25. Office is directed to send back lower court record and communicate this order to the court concerned forthwith for compliance.