JUDGMENT : The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein. The appellant herein filed this appeal challenging the Judgment dated 21.08.2013 passed in S.C. No. 3 of 2013 on the file of the Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, convicting him for the offences under Sections 450 & 376 of IPC and sentencing to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment, for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period already undergone was ordered to be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 2. The respondent/police registered the case against the appellant herein in Crime No.179 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 376, 324 of IPC., r/w 5/11 of IPC. 3. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Maduranthagam. The case was taken as PRC. No. 20 of 2012. After completing the formal procedures, as the offence is triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the file of learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Chengalpet, where, the case was taken on file as SC.No.3 of 2013. 4. As the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant under Section 376 of IPC relates to a crime against women, it was subsequently made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet for disposal, and accordingly the case was taken on file by the Mahila Court, Chengalpet. 5. After framing the charges, during trial, in order to prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.14 and 14 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P14. No material object was exhibited in the case. 6. After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating materials culled out from the evidences of the prosecution witnesses were put to the appellant and he denied it as false. However, on the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 7. Upon completion of argument on either side and considering the materials, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the above said charges and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment for each charge and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for each charges and in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for each payment. 7. Upon completion of argument on either side and considering the materials, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the above said charges and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment for each charge and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for each charges and in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for each payment. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the present Appeal is filed before this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution examined totally 14 witnesses and marked 14 documents out of which, Pws.1 to 3 are interesting witnesses as they are relatives of the victim. Further, Pw.2 and 3 are only hearsay witnesses. Pw.5 and 6 have turned hostile. According to the prosecution, the offence was committed on 05.10.2011, but the complaint was given only on 08.10.2011 i.e., three days after the alleged occurrence. The case was registered on 14.10.2011, after six days of the complaint. Thereafter the investigation officer recorded the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after a period of 4 1/2 of months and the same were also sent belatedly to the Court after three months of the occurrence. Further, there was also delay in preparing the Mahazar by the Investigating Officer. 9. In cases of this nature, medical examination has to be done, within a period of twenty four hours from the time of commission of the offence, whereas, in this case, medical examination was done belatedly. During such medical examination, it was noticed that there was no internal and external injuries and the possibility of recent sexual intercourse of the victim girl could not be ruled out. According to the learned counsel, the case was registered against the appellant herein only due to previous enimity. There is no eye witness in this case. The prosecution foisted a false case against the appellant, who is aged about 64 years and he has not committed any offence, as alleged. The prosecution has not explained the delay in filing the complaint and delay in registering the first information report. There was also delay in conducting the investigation as well as the medical examination, which creates suspicious in the case projected by the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has not proved the case as against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 10. The prosecution has not explained the delay in filing the complaint and delay in registering the first information report. There was also delay in conducting the investigation as well as the medical examination, which creates suspicious in the case projected by the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has not proved the case as against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 10. It is further stated that the prosecution has not examined Gomathi, is the sister of the victim girl, to whose house, the victim girl went at the time of occurrence. The Trial Court convicted the appellant without any substantiate evidences and merely based on the assumption and sympathy. There is no cogent and reliable witnesses to speak about the occurrence. The Trial Court failed to consider these aspects and convicted the appellant, without any material. There are also material contradiction between the prosecution witnesses, which were not considered by the Trial Court, therefore, it warrants interference of this Court. 11. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent/police submitted that the victim girl was 18 years and she is mentally retarded. The medical certificate issued by the Doctor, who had treated the victim girl, established that the victim girl was a mentally retarded person. On the date of occurrence, the victim girl went to his sister's house. The victim's sister and her mother-in-law/Pw.1 left the victim girl alone at the house and PW1 left for watering the cattle's. The appellant is also a residing in the same Village. Knowing fully about the situation, the appellant trespassed into the sister's house of the victim and committed the rape against her will. When the victim girl raised an alarm, Pw.1 rushed to the house and saw the appellant lying on the victim girl. However, the appellant attacked Pw.1 and escaped from the scene of occurrence. Subsequently, PW1 informed it to the mother of the victim. Since the victim girl was mentally retarded person, the complaint could not be given immediately. After discussion among the elders, the complaint was given against the appellant to the respondent/police on 08.10.2011. On receipt of the complaint, PW11 issued CSR No. 64 of 2011 for having received the complaint. As the victim girl is a mentally retarded person, PW11 had taken up the matter with the Inspector of Police and after discussion, the case in Crime No. 179 of 2011 was registered. On receipt of the complaint, PW11 issued CSR No. 64 of 2011 for having received the complaint. As the victim girl is a mentally retarded person, PW11 had taken up the matter with the Inspector of Police and after discussion, the case in Crime No. 179 of 2011 was registered. Subsequently, investigation was taken up during which the victim girl was subjected to medical examination. The Doctor, who examined the victim girl, found that she lost her virginity and her private part admitted two fingers. Thus, the Doctor has concluded that the victim girl was subjected to sexual intercourse. The medical evidence of the Doctor corroborated with the deposition of PW1 and considering the same, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. As the victim girl is a mentally retired person, she was not examined before the trial court. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court need not be interfered with by this Court. The learned Government Advocate therefore prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 12. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 13. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, when the victim girl was alone in the house of her sister, the accused/appellant, who belong to the same Village, trespassed into the house of the victim girl and had sexual intercourse with her, against her will. When the victim girl raised an alarm, PW1 rushed to the house and found the appellant lying on the victim girl. At that time, the accused had hit PW1 with a wooden log and fled from the scene of occurrence. When PW1 raised an alarm, PW3 and one Pachaiyammal chased the accused, but he could not be caught. In connection with the aforesaid occurrence, first information report was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of IPC. Whether the trial court is right in holding that the prosecution has proved the offence under Section 450 of IPC - trespassing into the house of the victim girl's sister and offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and committed the offence of rape has to be seen. 14. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, totally 14 witnesses were examined. Pw.1 is the mother-in-law of the sister of the victim girl. 14. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, totally 14 witnesses were examined. Pw.1 is the mother-in-law of the sister of the victim girl. The victim girl is a mentally retarded person. In order to prove her mental retiredness, Pw.14/Doctor, who was working as Assistant Professor in Chengalpet Government Medical College and Hospital and the Department of Mental Health has deposed that on 23.10.2017, the victim girl was brought to the hospital for examination of her mental health and she was admitted and examined by him. After examination, he had issued the Certificate under Ex.P14 stating that the victim girl is a mentally retarded person. Further, the Doctor, who conducted the medical examination of the victim girl after the occurrence namely PW8 deposed that the victim girl was brought by the police on 04.11.2011, she examined her and given the medical certificates Ex.P4 and P5. As per the deposition of PW8, the victim girl was subjected to penetrative sexual assault and the hymen was not intact and her vagina admitted two fingers. Therefore, it is evident that the victim girl was subjected to penetrative sexual assault. 15. It is evident that the victim was mentally retarded and therefore, she was not examined before the trial court. Pw.1 is the mother-in-law of the sister of the victim girl. On the date of occurrence, PW1 left the victim girl in her sister's house and went for providing water to the cattle in the field. When the victim girl was alone in the house, the appellant trespassed into the house and committed the rape. The victim girl raised an alarm and on hearing the same, Pw.1 entered into the house. At that time, she saw the appellant lying on the victim girl and committing sexual intercourse. Therefore, Pw.1 shouted him at once. The appellant woke up, hit PW1 with a wooden log and ran away from that place. When PW1 raised an alarm, PW3 and another person chased the accused but he escaped from there. Thereafter, PW1 informed to the mother of the victim girl. Pw.2 is the uncle of the victim girl and he also spoken about the information received by him that the appellant committed rape on the victim girl. Pw.4 conducted potent test on the appellant and he deposed that he was potent. Thereafter, PW1 informed to the mother of the victim girl. Pw.2 is the uncle of the victim girl and he also spoken about the information received by him that the appellant committed rape on the victim girl. Pw.4 conducted potent test on the appellant and he deposed that he was potent. On analysing the evidence of Pw.1 to 3 & Pw.14 and Exs.P1, P4, P5, P10 & P11, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended there is delay in filing the complaint, registering the first information report as also delay in investigating. As far as the delay in filing the complaint is concerned, it is the case of prosecution that the victim girl was mentally retarded person and the appellant is an aged person in the same village. Therefore, they would have thought of giving the complaint as any parents would normally do taking note of the reputation of the victim and also family. Normally, in cases of this nature, they will inform the Village Panchayat head or any elderly person in the village. Subsequently, they will discuss and decide about giving of the complaint. Therefore, giving complaint with delay in this case will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 17. Further, for the delay in registering the case, Pw.13 investigating officer stated that after receipt of the complaint, he went in search of the appellant and he could not trace the appellant, therefore, he went to the village to search the appellant, but he was not in the house. Therefore, merely there was delay in registering the complaint will not be a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. In this case, the victim girl is a mentally retired person and her parents are illiterate person. Further, they gave the complaint belatedly, after two days and the case was also registered since the investigating officer cannot examine the victim girl due to mental retardness. This is also one of the reasons stated by the prosecution for the delay in registering the case. Mere delay in lodging the First Information Report is not fatal, if the delay is satisfactorily explained. In this case, delay is properly explained. This Court also as fact finding Court, satisfied with the reason. This is also one of the reasons stated by the prosecution for the delay in registering the case. Mere delay in lodging the First Information Report is not fatal, if the delay is satisfactorily explained. In this case, delay is properly explained. This Court also as fact finding Court, satisfied with the reason. Further, in all the cases, delay in transmitting the First Information Report and reaching the Magistrate with delay will not be fatal, unless the genesis of the complaint is on doubt. Further, it is settled proposition of law, that lapse on the part of prosecution should not lead unmerited acquittal, subjected to rider that, in such a situation evidence on record should be clinching, so that lapse of prosecution can be condoned. In this case, evidence of eye witness PW.1 and medical evidence, clearly shows that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault and the appellant one who has done the same. 18. In this case, admittedly, Pw.8/Doctor deposed that the victim girl was subjected to penetrative sexual assault. Even though the case was registered belatedly no prejudice would be caused to the appellant. The evidence of Pw.1, 3, 8 and 14 and the documents in Exs.P1, P4, P5, P10 & P11 such as medical records, opinion of the Doctor, age proof certificate, medical certificate, mental retardness certificate would prove that the appellant has committed the offences under Sections 450 and 376 of IPC. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellant. There is no merits in the appeal to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 19. It is reported that pending this Appeal, the substantial portion of sentence against the appellant was suspended by this Court on 13.03.2020. In view of the dismissal of this appeal, the trial court is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the appellant/accused and to commit him to prison, so as to undergo the remaining period of sentence.