JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the convict who is an accused to challenge the judgment dated 14th September, 2016 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.ST(T-2) 03 of 2014. The accused was convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC. He has been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand). 2. In brief the prosecution case was that the prosecutrix who hereafter to be referred to as the victim girl was on the date of incident aged about 14 years. She was residing along with her father in a rented hut owned by the accused. The exact date of incident is not mentioned but is referred to as about a month before the lodging of the first information report which was done on 4th May, 2013. The FIR was lodged by her grandmother stating that about a month before her grand-daughter was alone at home at about 10 am the accused took her inside the house and removed her clothes. He also removed a towel which he was wearing. Around that time the accused could hear somebody approaching his house. The victim was asked to leave from back door and threatened not to disclose the incident to anybody. It was on account of this threat that the victim had not disclosed the incident to anybody for a long time. The victim had started residing with her grandmother after the said incident and disclosed the incident to her. 3. The police carried out the investigation and filed the charge sheet. The learned trial Judge frame the charge alleging that the accused had attempted to commit rape on the victim and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) read with Section 511 IPC. 4. The prosecution examined various witnesses including the victim, her grandmother and her aunt. The reference to the relevant deposition would be made at a later stage. Upon completion of trial, the learned Judge held that the charge against the accused was proved. The contention of the defence that there was gross unexplained delay in lodging the FIR was not accepted. The learned Judge was of the opinion that a young girl had no occasion to make false allegations. 5. Ms. Upon completion of trial, the learned Judge held that the charge against the accused was proved. The contention of the defence that there was gross unexplained delay in lodging the FIR was not accepted. The learned Judge was of the opinion that a young girl had no occasion to make false allegations. 5. Ms. Ayantika Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was gross delay in filing the FIR which was not explained properly by the prosecution. The statement of the victim was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There was great deal of difference between the statement and her deposition before the Court. There were contradictions in their depositions given by the different witnesses also. The entire incident was fabricated due to animosity between the family of the victim and the accused. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal contending that the testimony of the victim was reliable. Considering the socio-economic background of the victim and her family delay, of about one month in lodging the FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution. The version of the victim was duly corroborated by the evidence of other family members. The trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence while recording the conviction. 7. In order to consider the submissions made by both sides, I may first refer to the relevant evidence on record. The victim girl was examined as PW-6. In her deposition she stated that at the time of incident she was living with her parents as a tenant at the house belonging to the accused. One day in the morning at about 10 O Clock when all the family members were away the accused called her in his hut and closed the door. He thereafter undressed her and also himself. After laying her on the cot he inserted his penis in her vagina due to which she suffered injury and cried out. At that time somebody called from outside the house, the accused asked her to leave from the kitchen door and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody. Out of fear she did not disclose this but about a month. Later she told her grandmother about the incident. She identified the accused before the Court. 8. At that time somebody called from outside the house, the accused asked her to leave from the kitchen door and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody. Out of fear she did not disclose this but about a month. Later she told her grandmother about the incident. She identified the accused before the Court. 8. In the cross-examination she stated that in the same house besides her, her parents and her younger sister were also living. Two more persons were also residing as tenants but she did not know their names. She had admitted that about a month after the incident her aunt Archana Das had filed a complaint of her father and the accused having attacked her. She was a witness in the said case. The present FIR was filed after the said incident. She stated that her father has strained relations with her aunt and also her mother. 9. The first informant being the grandmother of the victim was examined as PW-7. In her deposition she had stated that on the day of incident the victim had come to her house. The next day when she told her to go back the victim told her that she would not go back. She also narrated the incident of the previous day of the accused having removed her underwear when someone approached the house and the victim was asked to leave. Thereupon, she called her daughter Archana Das, the aunt of the victim and reported the incident to the police. 10. In the cross-examination she had admitted that Archana Das had filed a case against the accused as well as the father of the victim. This incident had taken place after the alleged rape by the accused. She reiterated that the victim had narrated the incident to her the day following the incident. 11. The aunt of the victim Archana Das was examined as PW-8. She merely stated that her mother had informed her about the incident upon which the FIR was lodged. In the cross-examination she stated that she had lodged the case against the accused and the father of the victim which took place before the date of incident. 12. PW-1 Dr. Juthika Debbarma who was the doctor who had examined the victim. She opined that there was no evidence of vaginal penetration by an adult penis. She had given the report accordingly. 13. 12. PW-1 Dr. Juthika Debbarma who was the doctor who had examined the victim. She opined that there was no evidence of vaginal penetration by an adult penis. She had given the report accordingly. 13. From the above evidence on record, it can be seen that admittedly the FIR was lodged about a month after the alleged incident. This time gap shall have to be viewed in light of attendant circumstances. It is well settled that in cases involving rape, that too of the victims who are of tender age and who belong to socially and economically underprivileged class, mere passage of time may not be fatal to the prosecution. Nevertheless, a long gap of time would undoubtedly be a factum to be taken into account while assessing other evidence on record. 14. In the present case there is great deal of contradiction in the prosecution version on the question whether it was the victim who had not divulged the unfortunate incident to her near relatives or whether an adult near relative, though aware about the same, took a long time to lodge the first information report. The victim in her deposition had stated that after the incident the accused had threatened her with serious consequences and on account of which she did not disclose this incident to anybody. She was specific that she had told her grandmother about that only a month after the incident. Her deposition on this count is substantially different from what her grandmother had stated before the Court. Grandmother Anima Das PW-7 had deposed that on the date of the incident the victim had come to her house. The following day when she told her to go back she refused citing the said incident. In other words, according to the grandmother, the victim had disclosed the incident to her very next day after the event. This she reiterated in the cross-examination also. 15. Thus between two important prosecution witnesses i.e. the victim and her grandmother who also lodged the first information report there is inconsistent version of when the victim disclosed the incident to the grandmother. Going by the version of the grandmother she came to know about the same very next day. There is no explanation why the grandmother took nearly 30 days thereafter to put the investigation machinery into motion. 16. Going by the version of the grandmother she came to know about the same very next day. There is no explanation why the grandmother took nearly 30 days thereafter to put the investigation machinery into motion. 16. This important aspect must be borne in mind while referring to other attendant circumstances. It has come through the cross-examination of the victim, her grandmother PW-7 and her aunt PW-8 that the aunt had lodged a complaint against the father of the victim as well as the accused of a scuffle. According to the grandmother PW-7 this scuffle took place after the alleged rape of the victim girl. According to the P.W.8 the aunt, the scuffle took place before the incident relating to the victim. But apart from these internal inconsistencies between the versions of two witnesses for prosecution, the lodging of the complaint by the aunt of the victim within close proximity of the alleged incident would certainly raise doubts about the veracity of the prosecution case. These witnesses have also deposed that the father of the victim was having inimical relations with his wife i.e. the mother of the victim, the aunt PW-8 and grandmother PW-7. Possibility of false involvement therefore cannot be ruled out. 17. There are internal contradictions in the versions of the victim herself. The charge was for attempt to rape. The victim in her deposition had referred to penetration by the accused. The doctor who examined the victim found no such evidence. 18. The principle that in a case of rape the conviction can be recorded even on the basis of a sole testimony of the victim is now well settled. However, such testimony must be minutely scrutinized and must stand the test of reliability and must be in consonance with the other prosecution evidence which is brought on record. In the present case, I find that it is extremely unsafe to record the conviction of the accused on the sole testimony of the victim whose evidence is not corroborated and for the reasons stated above, does not pass the test of reliability. 19. In the result, the judgment of conviction and consequently the sentence are set aside. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. 20. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.