JUDGMENT N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. 1. The appellant/accused has filed this Criminal Appeal, against the judgment, dated 24.04.2008, in S.C.No.325 of 2006, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District, in and by which, the appellant/accused was convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: P.W.1 is the wife of P.W.2 and they are residing at O. Lakshmi Narayanapuram in Vilathikulam. P.W.1 was working as a Cook in the Government School and P.W.2 is running a Tea Shop in the same village. The accused is also residing in the same village. On 18.12.2004, when P.W.1 was in the Tea Shop, the accused requested P.W.2 to send P.W.1 with him for collecting wood for preparing charcoal. Accordingly, P.W.1 has accompanied the accused and both of them went to the nearby forest to collect Prospis Juliflora. Suddenly, the accused forcibly ravished her and after throwing mud on her eyes and mouth, he ran away from the place of occurrence. At that time, on hearing the quarrel, P.W.3 came to the place of occurrence and P.W.1 informed about the said occurrence to P.W.3 and thereafter, to her husband/P.W.2. P.W.2 advised her that since they have four children, she would not reveal anything to anybody. However, on 10.01.2005 P.W.1 lodged a complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.1. Due to the said advise of P.W.2, there has occurred a delay in lodging the complaint. (ii)On receipt of the said complaint, P.W.8, Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2005 under Section 376 IPC, which is marked as Ex.P.7. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.8 proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.8) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.9) in the presence of witnesses and also sent P.W.1 for medical examination. After completion of investigation, he filed a final report against the accused under Section 376 IPC. (iii).Before the Trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 8 witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 8) were examined and 9 documents (Exs.P.1 to P.9) were exhibited. On the side of the accused, neither a witness nor a document has been filed. After completion of investigation, he filed a final report against the accused under Section 376 IPC. (iii).Before the Trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 8 witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 8) were examined and 9 documents (Exs.P.1 to P.9) were exhibited. On the side of the accused, neither a witness nor a document has been filed. (iv).On completion of trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District, found the accused guilt under Section 376 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused. 3. "Xxx xxx xxx" 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there was a delay of 22 days in lodging the complaint. Further, it is stated that the evidence of P.W.1 is artificial and the alleged occurrence is highly improbable. He would further submit that the complaint has been given with some other motive and the entire evidence of P.W.1 is not believable and hence, he prays for acquittal. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that P.W.1 has clearly spoken about the occurrence and the delay in filing the FIR is not a ground to reject her evidence and her evidence inspires the confidence of the Court. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, now it has to be decided as to whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. The law is set in motion on the basis of Ex.P.1 complaint lodged by P.W.1 on 10.01.2005, the alleged occurrence said to have been taken place on 18.12.2004 and except P.W.1's evidence, there is no other evidence available on record. Of course, the conviction can be solely based on the evidence of the victim, provided her evidence inspires the confidence of the Court and it is not suffered with any infirmity or artificiality. Her evidence cannot be rejected in toto merely because that there is a delay in lodging the FIR. To accept the credibility of the witness, the evidence should not be suffered from any artificiality and improbability. 8. A careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 makes it very clear that she is not a illiterate village woman and she is working as a Cook in the Government School. This fact assumes significance. To accept the credibility of the witness, the evidence should not be suffered from any artificiality and improbability. 8. A careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 makes it very clear that she is not a illiterate village woman and she is working as a Cook in the Government School. This fact assumes significance. It is the case of P.W.1 that on the date of occurrence ie., on 18.12.2004, while she was in the tea shop along with P.W.2 her husband, the accused requested P.W.2 to send P.W.1 with him for collecting wood to make charcoal. Accordingly, P.W.1 accompanied the accused and both of them entered into forest area where the accused forcibly ravished her and besides he also threw mud on her eyes and mouth. At that time, on hearing the said noise, a boy came there and she informed the same to him and thereafter, to her husband. 9. It is to be noted that her evidence clearly indicates that the area, where she accompanied the accused is the full of charcoal and many people were preparing such charcoal. Further, her evidence also clearly shows that the place is full of activities. Therefore, the allegation that the accused forcibly committed rape in the area, where there is full of activities create doubtful. That apart, her evidence is that she was forcibly ravished by the accused. It is to be noted that the alleged occurrence took place in the forest area. If the accused has committed the alleged rape, there will be external injuries on the body of P.W.1, but no injuries whatsoever was found on her body. Of course, she was examined by the Medical Officer after 22 days and at this length of time, the injuries would not be there. The fact remains that it is not the case of P.W.1 that she has sustained some kind of injury on her private parts and the same was informed to her husband immediately. Similarly P.W.2 has not stated about any such injuries. 10. The fact remains that it is not the case of P.W.1 that she has sustained some kind of injury on her private parts and the same was informed to her husband immediately. Similarly P.W.2 has not stated about any such injuries. 10. It is also curious to note that the specific evidence of P.W.1 is that on the date of occurrence, she has attended her School work and signed the attendance and thereafter, when she came to tea shop, at that time, the accused took her, whereas P.W.2/her husband clearly stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, P.W.1 did not go to School and she was in her house at that time, the accused called P.W.1 for his work. However, P.W.1 stated that when she was in the tea shop at that time, the accused called her, whereas P.W.2 would state that she was in her house. This fact creates serious doubt with regard to the entire crux and about her credibility, particularly, the evidence of P.W.1 is that she went to her routine job to the School and signed the attendance and P.W.2 stated that she did not go to School. It is further to be noted that P.W.3 the person, who was with P.W.1 immediately after the occurrence is not being examined and that person is not examined by the accused. 11. All these facts clearly indicates that her evidence is touched with the element of artificiality. Further, if the accused thrown or put mud on her eyes and mouth, it would have create some injuries like congestion in her eyes and mouth, whereas, P.W.2 had not whispered anything about such injuries. These facts which create serious doubt about the evidence of P.W.1 and this fact coupled with the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, about 22 days also make her evidence unbelievable. 12. All these facts, make her evidence doubtful and it has not inspired the confidence of the Court. Hence, I am of the view that P.W.1 evidence unreliable, since her evidence did not inspire the confidence of the Court and is full of artificiality and improbability. 13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovilpatti, Tuticoroin District, in S.C.No.325 of 2006 on 24.04.2008 against the appellant/accused is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of all charges. 13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovilpatti, Tuticoroin District, in S.C.No.325 of 2006 on 24.04.2008 against the appellant/accused is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any paid shall be refunded to the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused shall be released forthwith from the prison, if he is no longer required in connection with any other case. Bail bond executed if any, shall stand terminated.