JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The appellant has assailed judgment and sentence dated 18.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala (H.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 3- G/VII/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence(s) Substantive sentence Fine Default Punishment. 376(1) of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years Rs.50,000/- Rigorous imprisonment for one year 506 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years Rs. 10,000/- Rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 06.10.2015, victim submitted a written complaint, Ex.PW4/A to SHO, Police Station Jwalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. alleging therein that she was resident of Village Bhoran Chanalti, P.O. Silh, Tehsil Jwalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. She was residing with her parents, both of whom were working. She was from a poor family. On 25.09.2015, she was alone at home as her parents had gone out for work. At about 4.00 P.M., Jagdish Chand (Jaggi) visited her house and started misbehaving. He held the victim by breast and thereafter gave teeth bite on her face, undressed her and committed wrong act with her. When she tried to make hue and cry, he inserted cucumber in her mouth. In the meantime, she became unconscious and Jagdish after committing wrong act ran away. She was threatened that in case she disclosed the incident to anyone, she as well as her parents would be killed. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, formal FIR, Ex.PW 11/A was registered and the investigation was initiated. 3. Victim was medically examined by PW-8, Dr. Shilpa Atwal on 06.10.2015 at about 9.25 P.M. and the findings were recorded vide MLC Ex.PW8/B. The statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW4/B was recorded by Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Dehra on 07.10.2015. Victim was also examined by PW16 Dr. Aakriti Manhas as Specialist. Further, the psychiatric opinion Ex.PW5/A was provided by a panel of doctors. 4. Samples obtained and preserved, during medical examination of the victim and the appellant, were got analysed scientifically. RFSL, Dharamshala provided its scientific report Ex. PX. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, challan was presented. 5. Prosecution examined total 18 witnesses. Appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above. 6. RFSL, Dharamshala provided its scientific report Ex. PX. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, challan was presented. 5. Prosecution examined total 18 witnesses. Appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above. 6. We have heard Mr. K.S. Banyal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vijender Katoch Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.K. Bhatti, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent and have also carefully perused the entire record. 7. The incident allegedly had taken place on 25th September, 2015. The matter, as per prosecution case, was reported for the first time on 06.10.2015. Further the case of the prosecution was that the disclosure about the incident, in the first instance was made to PW-1 Smt. Nishipant, President of Gram Panchayat and PW-2, Smt. Sarla Devi, a Ward Member. For such purpose, the victim and her mother PW-3 Smt. Tripta Devi had visited Panchayat office in the morning of 06.10.2015. 8. Victim was examined as PW-4. She narrated the entire incident before the trial court in the same manner as she had got recorded in complaint Ex.PW4/A. The victim stated that she did not disclose the misdeed of appellant to her mother when she (mother) returned home at about 5.00 -5.30 P.M because the victim was scared on account of threats extended by the appellant. She further stated that she disclosed the incident on 06.10.2015 for the first time in front of PW-1 Smt. Nishipant and PW-2 Smt. Sarla. Victim disclosed her date of birth as 10.04.1997. 9. In her cross-examination, the victim stated that the houses of PW-1 and PW-2 were at a distance of about 200 meters from her house and the distance could be covered within 5-10 minutes. The houses of her relatives were also situated at a distance of about 100 meters from her house. The Police Station Jwalamukhi was about 10 kilometers away from her house. The village of the victim was well connected by bus service and other modes of transport were also available. She further narrated that if somebody shouted from her house, it could be easily heard in the surrounding houses. 10. The Police Station Jwalamukhi was about 10 kilometers away from her house. The village of the victim was well connected by bus service and other modes of transport were also available. She further narrated that if somebody shouted from her house, it could be easily heard in the surrounding houses. 10. PW-3 Smt. Tripta Devi, the mother of the victim, deposed during trial that on 25.09.2015, on her return to home at about 5.00 P.M., she found victim perturbed, frightened and shivering. Despite being asked, the victim did not disclose anything and even abandoned her food. PW-2 Sarla Devi had advised her to take victim to Panchayat so that the victim could reveal anything with respect to her condition. After 2/3 days PW-3 had taken the victim to Gram Panchayat Silh, where she disclosed about the misdeed committed by appellant with her. She further stated that the lady Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Silh had called the police and the victim had made statement before the police. 11. In cross-examination, this witness stated that she had noticed injury marks on the face of the victim and those injury marks were shown to the Panchayat including PW-2 Sarla Devi. No other injury mark was noticed by her on the person of the victim. Gram Panchayat office was stated to be near to her house. She admitted that they had informed the police after 11 days of the incident. The husband of PW-3 was also stated to be residing with them under the same roof. 12. PW-1 Smt. Nishipant, President Gram Panchayat, Silh, stated on oath that on 06.10.2015, many persons had assembled in Panchayat Ghar. She had chat with victim and her mother. The victim was upset and did not divulge anything to her despite several requests. PW-1 then asked Ward Members PW-2 Smt. Sarla Devi, Meera Devi and Ruko Devi etc., to enquire from the victim. After some time, the victim revealed that appellant had played a mischief with her. Nothing further was revealed to this witness. As per PW-1, victim had disclosed to PW-2 Smt. Sarla Devi that the appellant had committed rape on her. She further stated that thereafter the police was informed. 13. In cross-examination on behalf of the appellant, PW- 1 stated that she had not noticed any injury on the face of the victim. Nothing further was revealed to this witness. As per PW-1, victim had disclosed to PW-2 Smt. Sarla Devi that the appellant had committed rape on her. She further stated that thereafter the police was informed. 13. In cross-examination on behalf of the appellant, PW- 1 stated that she had not noticed any injury on the face of the victim. No other injury was shown on the person of the victim to her. 14. PW-2 Smt. Sarla Devi stated that on 06.10.2015 she was present in the meeting of Gram Panchayat, Silh. At about 11.00 A.M., victim along with PW-3 came to the Panchayat. Victim was perturbed and was unable to speak anything. On persuasion, she disclosed that on 25.09.2015 accused had committed rape on her while she was alone in the house. She narrated details of misdeed committed by the appellant and also disclosed about threats extended by the appellant. As per this witness, thereafter PW-1 called the police and victim made a written complaint. 15. In cross-examination, this witness stated that her house as well as house of PW-1 could be reached within 10 to 15 minutes from the house of victim. The victim had not been asked about the reason for delay in narrating the incident. PW-2 further stated that she had asked PW-3 Smt. Tripta Devi about the delay to which she had replied that the matter could not be reported earlier because of public shame. This witness, however, admitted that she had not noticed any visible marks of teeth bite or scratch on the face of the victim or any part of her body. As per this witness, she had asked PW-3 to show marks of injury on the person of the victim but no injury was shown. This witness also stated that many houses surround the house of appellant and house of prosecutrix/victim was situated in front of the house of appellant. She further admitted that if a person cried in loud voice and raised any alarm from the house of victim, it could be heard in the adjoining house. 16. From the analysis of aforesaid statements, the only explanation rendered by the victim with respect to delay in reporting the matter, was the threat allegedly issued by the appellant. She further admitted that if a person cried in loud voice and raised any alarm from the house of victim, it could be heard in the adjoining house. 16. From the analysis of aforesaid statements, the only explanation rendered by the victim with respect to delay in reporting the matter, was the threat allegedly issued by the appellant. To judge the genuineness of such explanation, all attending circumstances as have emerged on the record need minute scan especially keeping in view the flowing dictum in Tulshidas Kanolkar vs. State of Goa, (2003) 8 SCC 590 : “5. We shall first deal with the question of delay. The unusual circumstances satisfactorily explained the delay in lodging of the first information report. In any event, delay per se is not a mitigating circumstance for the accused when accusations of rape are involved. Delay in lodging first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding prosecution case and doubting its authenticity. It only puts the court on guard to search for and consider if any explanation has been offered for the delay. Once it is offered, the Court is to only see whether it is satisfactory or not. In a case if the prosecution fails to satisfactory explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on account of such delay, it is a relevant factor. On the other hand satisfactory explanation of the delay is weighty enough to reject the plea of false implication or vulnerability of prosecution case. As the factual scenario shows, the victim was totally unaware of the catastrophe which had befallen to her. That being so, the mere delay in lodging of first information report does not in any way render prosecution version brittle.” 17. Noticeably, the victim in her cross examination made an admission in following terms; “It is correct that from the date of alleged incident till the reporting of matter to the Police I used to go out of my house and meet people” 18. The aforesaid version of the victim is sufficient to infer that perception of threat, as reason for delay in reporting the matter, was mere pretense. Had the victim been overawed by the threats allegedly extended by the appellant, she would not have roamed freely outside her house without disclosing her plight to anyone including her parents. The aforesaid version of the victim is sufficient to infer that perception of threat, as reason for delay in reporting the matter, was mere pretense. Had the victim been overawed by the threats allegedly extended by the appellant, she would not have roamed freely outside her house without disclosing her plight to anyone including her parents. Moreover, neither the victim nor her mother PW-3 had stated that even after 25.09.2015, the appellant had met them or had repeated the threats. 19. PW-3 Smt. Tripta Devi had a different version to offer, when in her cross-examination she stated that the matter was not reported earlier on account of public shame. It is not even clear as to when victim narrated the incident to her mother. If, PW-3 had come to know about the incident prior to 06.10.2015 and fear of public shame was the reason for delay in reporting the matter, why the correct facts were not disclosed before the Police? 20. Thus, the delay of 11 days in reporting the matter to the police or any other authority, in our considered view, has remained unexplained. In this view of the matter, an inference can easily be drawn that the version of the victim and her mother was not unblemished. 21. The delay in reporting offence of rape has its own implications. In Prakash Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2019) 5 SCC 628 , it has been held as under:- “20. There is admittedly a delay of 7 months in lodging the FIR in the case of alleged rape. If the case is reported immediately apart from the inherent strength of the case flowing from genuineness attributable to such promptitude, the perceptible advantage would be the medical examination to which the prosecutrix can be subjected and the result of such examination in a case where there is a resistance. It is the case of the prosecution that she raised hue and cry and therefore apparently she would have resisted. Possibly, a medical examination may have revealed signs of any resistance or injuries. In this case the High Court has proceeded on the basis of testimony of the prosecutrix and sought to fortify it by the extra judicial confession made before PW4 and PW5.” 22. The conduct of victim and her mother clearly amounted to allowing the fading away of evidence, if any, which would have rendered credence to their version. In this case the High Court has proceeded on the basis of testimony of the prosecutrix and sought to fortify it by the extra judicial confession made before PW4 and PW5.” 22. The conduct of victim and her mother clearly amounted to allowing the fading away of evidence, if any, which would have rendered credence to their version. As a result, neither any medical evidence nor any scientific evidence was available to corroborate the case of the victim. The MLC, Ex.PW8/B, did not exhibit any visible signs which could be said to corroborate the allegations leveled by the victim and her mother. No visible marks of violence were present on external parts of her body or on the sexual organs. Only hymen was found slightly bruised, which as per the statement of PW-8 Dr. Shilpa Atwal, could be caused by reasons other than the sexual assault. The opinion rendered by PW-8 that the possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out, was not a very definitive opinion based on available evidence. 23. The psychiatric opinion, Ex.PW 5/A also does not reveal any material which may be considered corroborative to the allegations leveled by the victim against the appellant. The victim was examined by Psychiatrist and Psychologist between 9.10.2015 and 12.10.2015, when the matter had already become public. Therefore, the fact that she was found scared and confused with tearful eyes, her psychomotor activities were found grossly retarded, her insight was absent etc. could not be said to be necessarily related to the alleged incident especially when the victim had been roaming outside her house and meeting people freely after 25.9.2015 till date of reporting the matter. Even as per the psychiatric opinion, her developmental mile stones were within limits. Her IQ was found 88 with no intellectual disability. In these circumstances, it also cannot be said that the victim was so perturbed psychologically that she was not able to narrate the incident for 11 days to anybody. This, in fact, was not even the case of the victim herself. 24. Now coming to other circumstances, assuming that the victim could not raise any voice in presence of the appellant on 25.09.2015 but there is nothing to suggest that what prevented the victim from raising hue and cry after appellant left her house. This, in fact, was not even the case of the victim herself. 24. Now coming to other circumstances, assuming that the victim could not raise any voice in presence of the appellant on 25.09.2015 but there is nothing to suggest that what prevented the victim from raising hue and cry after appellant left her house. This aspect gains significance after this court has expressed serious doubt as to genuineness of threat perception proclaimed by the victim as reason for delay in lodging FIR. The evidence on record clearly reveals that the houses in the village were in near vicinity of victim’s house and in case any alarm was raised it would have been audible to others in neighbourhood. 25. Another fact which cannot be ignored is that the father of the victim has remained conspicuously absent from the entire episode. There is not even a whisper as to whether the victim or PW-3 had disclosed anything to her husband. The father of victim was neither cited nor examined as a witness. This conduct of victim and PW-3 raises a lot of questions regarding the genuineness of their version. 26. Further, PW-3 stated that she had noticed teeth bite mark on the face of the victim and had also shown such injury to the Panchayat members including PW-2 Smt. Sarla Devi, whereas PW-1 and PW-2 have specifically denied having been shown or having noticed any injury on the person of the victim. 27. A copy of news item, reported in the vernacular press on 05.10.2015, has also been placed on record by defence and marked as Mark-X. As per said document the matter regarding incident in question was in public domain even on 5.10.2015 i.e. a day before lodging of FIR. In this context, the cross-examination of Investigating Officer, PW-18 can be noticed wherein he had feigned ignorance about news item reported in the press of 05.10.2015 inter alia denying the allegations of rape against the victim. This fact gains importance, firstly for the reason that nothing was shown by the prosecution that the document Mark-X was a forged or fabricated document and secondly, the very fact that incident was reported in the press on 05.10.2015, irrespective of the veracity of its contents, makes it abundantly clear that victim and her mother were not correct in saying that the incident was reported for the first time on 6.10.2015. 28. 28. In these circumstances, the question arises as to whether the sole testimony of victim without any corroboration could have been relied upon to convict the appellant for offence under Section 376(i) and 506 of the IPC? The sole testimony of victim in the facts of the instant case, in our considered view, has failed to generate requite confidence and it will not be safe to place faith, trust and reliance on such testimony. 29. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in appreciating the material on record in right perspective. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was swayed by the fact that no reason had come forth for false implication of the appellant. Human behaviour cannot be put in straight jacket formula. The prosecution carries a very heavy burden on its shoulders to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Un-explained reasons for false implication of the accused, cannot substitute the failure of prosecution to discharge the burden rested on it. From the above noted analyses, it can safely be said that prosecution has fallen much short of required standard of proof. 30. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellant. Thus, the impugned judgment and sentence dated 18.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No. 3-G/VII/2016 cannot be sustained, in view of the material available on record. Consequently, the same is set aside by allowing the appeal of appellant. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. He is ordered to be released forthwith in case not required in any other case. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants immediately. 31. In view of the provisions of Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant is directed to furnish his personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, before the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. 32. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Records be sent back. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.