Judgment : Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 19.10.2013, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Agra, in S.T. No. 12 of 2011 (State vs. Girand Singh and others), registered as Case Crime No. 388 of 2010, under Sections 342, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(12) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bah, District Agra, whereby the accused appellant no. 1 Girand Singh was found guilty under Section 342 I.P.C. and sentenced to Six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/-. He was further found guilty under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced for ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000/-. The accused appellant no. 2 Smt. Manju was found guilty under Section 342 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. Both the accused appellants were acquitted under Section 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(12) SC/ST Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, an application was moved by the victim informant herself on 16.12.2010 stating that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category and is resident of Village Hingote Kheda, Police Station Bah, District Agra. On 15.12.2010 at 05:00 P.M., she went to throw the garbage of her house. When she was returning home after disposal of the garbage, the wife of the appellant Girand Singh called her, where the appellant Girand was sitting intoxicated. The appellant Girand caught her, dragged her in her house and raped her. The victim raised hue and cry but she was threatened. The victim was pregnant at the time of occurrence, hence she lodged the report. 3. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Pushpa Agrawal, PW-4 who did not find any external injury on the body of the victim but on the internal examination found the hymen torn. The victim was 24 weeks pregnant. The vagina was admitting two fingers easily. There was no bleeding or discharge from the vagina. She prepared the medical report which was proved as Exhibit Ka-3. 4. The investigation of the matter was entrusted to PW-5 Siddharth Verma on 16.12.2010. On the same day, he copied the chick report in the case diary, recorded the statements of the chick writer and the informant who was also the victim. She prepared the medical report which was proved as Exhibit Ka-3. 4. The investigation of the matter was entrusted to PW-5 Siddharth Verma on 16.12.2010. On the same day, he copied the chick report in the case diary, recorded the statements of the chick writer and the informant who was also the victim. He further inspected the place of occurrence at the pointing out of the victim, prepared the site plan which was proved as Exhibiit Ka-4. He further recorded the statements of Satya Prakash. The accused could not be traced on that day. On 17.12.2010, the accused appellant Girand Singh was arrested whose statement were recorded on 18.12.2010. On 19.12.2010, the co-accused Smt. Manju was arrested and her statement were recorded. On 27.12.2010, witness Roopa was interrogated and the statement of Pappu was also recorded. On 29.12.2010, the medical report was obtained and copied in the case diary. The investigation ended into a charge sheet which was proved by this witness as Exhibit Ka-5. 5. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. PW-1 is the informant who is also the victim in this case, who proved the written report as Exhibit Ka-1. PW-2 is Constable Mahesh Babu, who prepared the chick report which was proved as Exhibit Ka-2. He also scribed the G.D. PW-3 is Pramod Kumar who is said to be the witness of fact. The statement of PW-4 Dr. Pushpa Agrawal and PW-5 Siddharth Verma have been discussed earlier. 6. After closure of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the occurrence. Both the accused are husband and wife. Both of them have stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and village party bandi. They have also produced two defence witnesses. DW-1 is Siya Ram who has given the negative evidence about the occurrence and DW-2 is Sarnaam Singh who has tried to prove that the accused Girand Singh was not at home at the time of occurrence. 7. Learned lower court after hearing counsel for the parties, returned the finding of guilt as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up in this appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and perused the original record. 10. 7. Learned lower court after hearing counsel for the parties, returned the finding of guilt as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up in this appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and perused the original record. 10. Counsel for the appellants have submitted that this is an improbable case where it is alleged that the wife has called the victim who was raped by the husband of the co-accused. 11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that learned lower court has passed its judgment on the basis of evidence available on record, thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is delay in lodging the first information report, hence, the prosecution story, as narrated, is not reliable. 13. As far as, delay in lodging the first information report in the cases of sexual assault is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2009 SC 1010 , (State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Prem Singh) has laid down as under:- "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. Thus, in view of the above, the delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences has to be considered with a different yardstick." 14. In this particular case of sexual assault, since there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report which has not been explained by the prosecutrix, although, she has only said that next day when her husband came, she went to the police station for lodging the first information report. She was accompanied by her sister-in-law and sister Roopa to the police station. Thus, this causes a doubt in the prosecution case. 15. Coming to the occurrence as narrated by the victim who is also the informant. She was accompanied by her sister-in-law and sister Roopa to the police station. Thus, this causes a doubt in the prosecution case. 15. Coming to the occurrence as narrated by the victim who is also the informant. Generally, in cases of rape, the court does not ponder to find corroboration if the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is no a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge. However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face vaule, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend assurance to her testimony as has been held in Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2006 SC 508 . 16. The evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material, prosecutrix making deliberate improvements on material point with a view to rule out consent on her part and there being no injury on her person even though her version may be otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence as has been held in Suresh N. Bhusare & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 1 SCC 220 . 17. PW-1, the victim has stated that the occurrence relates to 16th although the occurrence is said to have taken place on 15.12.2010, but I would not give much importance to this because the victim is a rustic uneducated lady but definitely it leaves a shadow of doubt as to what at all was the necessity for this witness to state the date specifically. In the examination-in-chief, the victim informant introduced an absolutely new theory that the accused appellant Manju called her in her house, where the accused appellant Girand Singh locked the door when she shouted, Bua of Girand Singh opened the latch, while Girand Singh raped her. Whereas, according to the first information report, she was dragged into the house by Girand. In her examination-in-chief, she has further stated that her sister Roopa came tracing her, at which Manju stated that she did not know where the victim was. After that Roopa Kicked the door and Manju opened the door when the victim fled away from the house of the accused. Thus, the version of the victim is changing colours. 18. The cross-examination of this witness is very relevant, inasmuch as, she has admitted that some money was given by her husband to her parents which had been returned by her parents to her. She has admitted that the occurrence took place two years prior to her statement and she has specifically said that ^^;g dguk xyr gS fd ?kVuk tkM+s dh gks lgh ckr ;g gS fd ?kVuk xehZ dh FkhA^^ Although the occurrence is of 15.12.2010, I do not think that this witness could have mistaken summer to winter because if the lady is ravished, this would be an unforgettable incident of her life. The victim has admitted that her husband contested the election in which he was opposed by the appellant Girand Singh and his family members. After that incident, the present incident took place. Further in cross-examination, she has admitted that the written report was not read over to her. In cross-examination, she has further admitted that when she went for disposal of the garbage, she was dragged. But darkness was not such that, could not recognize people. Thus, this witness is changing her version from the first information report to her statement given before the court. 19. Pramod Kumar PW-2 has stated that he did not witness any occurrence. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. Although, it is trite law that the evidence of hostile witness can be relied but in spite of being cross-examined by the defence, there was nothing significant in the statement of this witness. 20. Dr. 19. Pramod Kumar PW-2 has stated that he did not witness any occurrence. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. Although, it is trite law that the evidence of hostile witness can be relied but in spite of being cross-examined by the defence, there was nothing significant in the statement of this witness. 20. Dr. Pushpa Agrawal has also certified the pregnancy of the victim of 24 weeks at the time of occurrence but has stated that the victim did not have any mark of injury on her person. It is also well settled that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim will not by itself falsify the case of rape, nor construed as evidence of consent. Similarly, the opinion of a doctor that there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse or rape, may not be sufficient to disbelieve the accusation of rape by the victim. Bruises, abrasions and scratches on the victim especially on the forearms, writs, face, breast, thighs and back are indicative of struggle and will support the allegation of sexual assault as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2005 (Radhu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), decided on 14.09.2007. 21. If there had been any forceful sexual intercourse, the victim must have made some strong resistance being a grown up lady and in the process, some injuries would have been found on the vagina / private parts of the body or some other parts indicative of any such use of force and it would be too much to assume that there would have been no injury, whatsoever, on the body, on this account. Though, injuries on the body is not always a must or sine-quo-non to prove a charge of rape. 22. Having regard to the case of the prosecution that the victim had been subjected to rape and forced sexual intercourse, this aspect of the matter cannot be completely lost sight of, especially when the victim had not stated in her examination-in-chief that she afforded any resistance to the accused or she was threatened, although, this averment finds place in the first information report. Even the I.O. PW-5 who has inspected the spot did not find any mark of resistance on the spot and he specifically stated that if there would have been signs of resistance, he would definitely have found such symptom on the place of occurrence. Although, the supplementary report, as regards the pregnancy of the victim, is on record, but taking the statement of Dr. Pushpa Agrawal PW-4 as correct and the averment in the first information report as correct that the victim was pregnant at the time of occurrence (although the victim has not stated so in her statement on oath before the trial court), had lends a more support to the factum that the whole story is a concocted, fabricated because, if a lady who is 24 weeks pregnant is subjected to forceful sexual assault / rape, there is no reason why she would not have sustained injuries or there would not of any discharge from her vagina which is wanting in this case. 23. Thus, the evidence of the victim is shaky, unreliable, not worthy of credence. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 24. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. 25. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated order dated 19.10.2013, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Agra, in S.T. No. 12 of 2011 (State vs. Girand Singh and others), registered as Case Crime No. 388 of 2010, under Sections 342, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(12) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bah, District Agra. 26. The appellant no. 2 namely Smt. Manju is on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. Appellant no. 1 namely Girand Singh is in jail. He may be released forthwith in this case. However, the appellants are directed to comply with the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 27. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court concerned for compliance. ———————