JUDGMENT : 1. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.2.2008 at about 1.00 p.m., the complainant, Kumari Lakshmidevi, was harvesting the tamarind fruits in the backyard of her house. The front door was closed. She was cleaning the tamarind fruits. There was nobody in the house. At about 1.00 p.m., the accused who was the neighbor of the complainant, came and asked her to come with him. When she refused, he came near the complainant, closed her mouth, dragged her into the house, locked the door and committed rape on her. She cried for help. At that time, PW2 Gowramma her aunt, knocked on the door. On hearing the same, the accused hid in the house. When the complainant’s aunt opened the door and entered into the house, he ran away. 2. The same was brought to the notice of the parents of the complainant. They tried to solve the issue by intervention of the elders, but nothing came of it. On 17.2.2008, a complaint was lodged and a case was registered in Crime No.30/08 for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 376 of IPC. Investigation was taken up and the accused was arrested. Charge Sheet was field. The matter was set down for trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked EX.P1 to P12. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 448 and 376 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 448 of I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the same, accused has filed this appeal. 4. (a) Sri Y.S. Shiva Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court has committed an error in misreading the evidence and material on record. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused. There is delay of two days in lodging the complaint. The incident is said to have taken place on 15.2.2008 and the complaint was lodged on 17.2.2008. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. In its absence, the case of the prosecution has become fatal and cannot be accepted. There is delay of two days in lodging the complaint. The incident is said to have taken place on 15.2.2008 and the complaint was lodged on 17.2.2008. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. In its absence, the case of the prosecution has become fatal and cannot be accepted. (b) The evidence of the victim-PW1 cannot be accepted. The medical evidence led in by the prosecution does not corroborate the evidence of the victim. The evidence of the doctor does not indicate any offence of rape committed on the victim. Hence, in the absence of medical evidence corroborating the prosecution case, the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted. It is further contended that there was enmity between the family of the complainant and that of the accused and in order to wreck vengeance, a false complaint was lodged against the accused. Hence, on this ground also the appellant requires to be acquitted. 5. (a) On the other hand, the learned SPP disputes the same. He contends that in so far as the delay is concerned, the prosecution has clearly established the reasons for the same; that immediately after the incident, the family of the complainant approached the family of the accused to settle the dispute amicably, instead of lodging a complaint. Thereafter, they approached the elders for an amicable settlement of the matter and since nothing came of it, a complaint was lodged. Hence, the delay has been satisfactorily explained. (b) The evidence of the victim-PW1 would clearly indicate the brutal offence committed on her. She has protested as much as possible to save herself. She was a young girl, aged about 18 to 20 years as per the medical report. At her tender age, whatever possible, she has done to save herself. Corroborating the evidence of PW1, it is submitted that the victim was examined by the Doctor two days after the incident took place. Therefore, there may be an irregularity in the medical report. If she was examined on the date of offence, the result would have been otherwise. Therefore, in that background, the delay has occurred. In so far as enmity, it was contended that there was no enmity between the parties. A clear case of rape has been committed by the accused. To save himself, he has pleaded a ground of enmity, which cannot be accepted. Therefore, in that background, the delay has occurred. In so far as enmity, it was contended that there was no enmity between the parties. A clear case of rape has been committed by the accused. To save himself, he has pleaded a ground of enmity, which cannot be accepted. Hence, the appeal requires to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. 7. PW1 is the complainant and the victim. She has stated in her evidence the manner in which the offence took place; that she was harvesting the tamarind crop and cleaning it in the backyard of her house. At that time, the accused came there. She refused to go with him. He dragged her into the room, bolted the door and committed the offences on her. She tried her best to save herself, but the same was of no avail. It was only when PW2 her aunt, came and knocked on the door, the accused hid in the house and thereafter ran away. This is the evidence of the victim. 8. I have considered the cross-examination. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in the cross-examination except taking a plea of defence with regard to the same. A reading of the evidence would clearly indicate the manner in which the offence was committed. The medical report shows that she was aged between 18 to 20 years. At her tender age, she tried to save herself, but the accused closed her mouth, held her legs and thereafter, committed the offence. In view of the contents of the complaint and keeping in mind her evidence during cross-examination, I find no reason to disbelieve her statement. Hence, evidence of PW1 requires to be accepted. 9. PW2 knocked the door. She came inside the room and thereafter, the accused who was hiding ran away from there. This evidence of PW2 is sufficient to implicate the accused to the extent of the fact that he was the person who was present when the offence took place. 10. PW4 is the brother of mother of PW1, PW5 is the scribe, and PW6 is the doctor who examined the accused. PW7 is the engineer who drew the sketch, PW8 is the in-charge FSL Officer, PW9 is the ASI who has arrested the accused, PW10 is the constable who delivered FIR to the Court, PW11 is the PSI who registered the crime. PW7 is the engineer who drew the sketch, PW8 is the in-charge FSL Officer, PW9 is the ASI who has arrested the accused, PW10 is the constable who delivered FIR to the Court, PW11 is the PSI who registered the crime. PW12 is the ASI who has prepared spot mahazar. PW13 is the Doctor, who issued the medical certificate of PW1 in terms of Ex.P10 and PW14 is the investigating officer. 11. In so far as the delay is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is two days delay in lodging the complaint. However, according to the prosecution, the complainant and her family, intended to convene a panchyath to settle the dispute amicably and therefore, the delay has been caused in lodging the complaint. Therefore, the delay has been properly explained. Hence, it cannot be said that the delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 12. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the delay has been satisfactorily explained. It cannot run fatal to the prosecution. Moreover there is no fault in so far as the victim is concerned. The delay has been narrated in order to amicably settle the dispute and not to make it a public issue. Therefore, they restrained themselves from lodging the complaint forthwith. The lodging of the complaint forthwith would set the criminal law into motion. They were prepared to take care of their daughter rather than to move the criminal Court to punish the accused. Therefore, the delay cannot run fatal to the case of the prosecution. 13. In so far as the contention that the victim was a consenting party to the offence, the same runs contrary to the evidence of PW1 herself. She has clearly narrated that the accused took her into the room, bolted the door, held the legs and thereafter, committed the offences. It is further contended that in the evidence it is narrated that the floor was wet. If at all the incident has taken place there should have been injuries. However, as narrated, the complaint was lodged two days after the incident. Therefore, only because of the absence of any injuries, it cannot be contended that such an incident could not have taken place and therefore, the victim was a consenting party to the offence. 14. If at all the incident has taken place there should have been injuries. However, as narrated, the complaint was lodged two days after the incident. Therefore, only because of the absence of any injuries, it cannot be contended that such an incident could not have taken place and therefore, the victim was a consenting party to the offence. 14. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, in the certificate issued by PW13, namely the medical officer, he has narrated that the victim has suffered sexual intercourse and it cannot be said that such an incident has not taken place. The appellant counsel contends that only because the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse that itself cannot lead to an inference that an offence of rape has been committed on her. The victim was examined only on the third day of the incident namely on 18.2.2008. There was three days delay, which is to be duly considered in order to appreciate the evidence of PW13. The evidence of the Doctor is an examination of the victim after the third day of the incident. He has further categorically stated that the victim suffered sexual intercourse. Even on cross- examination he has stated that such an act has been committed on the victim. Since she was examined on the third day of the incident, necessarily fresh wounds on her could not have been identified. Hence, it cannot be said that the Doctor’s evidence cannot be accepted. In view of the evidence of the Doctor as well as the cross- examination, there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. 15. (a) The further contention is one of enmity. It is contended there was enmity between the family of the accused and that of the complainant. Such a contention cannot be accepted. Assuming there was enmity, then the victim would have implicated the accused on the same day of the incident. Either she or her family would not have waited for two days. Hence, the question of enmity cannot be accepted. (b) On the other hand, the victim as well as the parents intended to amicably settle the issue and not to make it a public issue and therefore, approached the elders. They were more interested in settling the issue rather than initiating the criminal law into motion. Hence, the question of enmity cannot be accepted. (b) On the other hand, the victim as well as the parents intended to amicably settle the issue and not to make it a public issue and therefore, approached the elders. They were more interested in settling the issue rather than initiating the criminal law into motion. Therefore, the ground of enmity would necessarily not come to the aid of the appellant, rather it goes against him. 16. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 161 (Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra and another) with reference to para 14 to contend that when medical evidence does not corroborate oral evidence, conviction would not lie. I have considered the judgment in length. In the facts therein, the victim who had complained of sexual inter course, was examined on the very day the offence took place. It was found that there was no discrepancy between the medical evidence and the oral evidence of the victim. On that ground, acquittal was ordered. However, the facts in the present case are different. The medical examination took place three days after the incident. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment is of no avail to the appellant. 17. He further placed reliance on the judgment reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 546 (Ramdas and others vs. State of Maharashtra) with reference to para 24, on the ground of delay. I have considered the judgment in detail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the question of delay is a matter of appreciation of evidence. That the Court would have to look into the evidence related to delay and thereafter to consider the same. Herein, two days delay has occurred since the parents of the victim did not intend to make it a public issue and invite comments from the villagers. Their initial desire was to settle the dispute as amicably as possible without shaming the victim. Therefore, they approached the elders to sort out the issue. Since nothing came of it for two days, it was only then they filed the complaint. The incident is one of rape. The image and reputation of the victim is of primary importance. When the parents tried to save the same and sought intervention of the elders, the delay has occurred. Therefore, it cannot be said that delay is fatal. Since nothing came of it for two days, it was only then they filed the complaint. The incident is one of rape. The image and reputation of the victim is of primary importance. When the parents tried to save the same and sought intervention of the elders, the delay has occurred. Therefore, it cannot be said that delay is fatal. The delay has been adequately and substantially explained by the prosecution. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the delay cannot run fatal to the case of the prosecution in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 18. In the case reported in 2002 SCC (Cri.) 592 (Dilip and another vs. State of M.P.) para 14 was with regard to the corroboration of the medical evidence with the evidence of the prosecutrix. However as reasoned herein above, since there was a delay in the medical examination of the victim, there are minor descripencies. Further the evidence of the Doctor coupled with the evidence of the victim would corroborate so far as the offence of rape committed on the victim is concerned. Moreover, the medical evidence would have to be considered in the back ground of the delay in examining the victim as well as the evidence of the Doctor who has clearly narrated the act committed on her. Hence, the said judgment would be of no avail to the appellant. 19. Keeping in mind the contentions advanced as well as the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, I find no good ground to allow this appeal. The trial Court has rightly considered the evidence and material on record. The evidence has been rightly appreciated by the trial Court. The conviction of the accused under Section 448 as well as under 376 of the IPC is based on the evidence and material on record. I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The bail bonds stand cancelled.