JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant – accused has filed an application through jail seeking temporary bail wherein he has prayed to withdraw the criminal appeal. Looking to the facts of the case, this Court thought it fit to fix the main appeal for final hearing and, therefore, the matter is adjourned, today. Therefore, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. The accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Pocso), Mehsana (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial court”) in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2016, whereby present appellant (accused) has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 377, 506(2) etc of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC”) and directed him to undergo sentence of seven years imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, ten years imprisonment for the offence under Section 377 of the IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and one year imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. 3. The case of the prosecution briefly is that on 16.01.2016, victim lodged the FIR inter alia alleging that her husband died before twenty years and she is living with her son and she used to bring their food from the village. It is alleged that on 15.01.2016 at about 7.45 p.m., the victim had gone for bringing the food from the village and after taking food from the house of one Shantaben Gabhabhai, she went to go home at about 8.30 p.m. at that time one Senma Rajubhai Ganpatbhai (accused) came there and gagged her mouth and took her at the place of occurance where the victim tried to rescue herself but she could not save herself. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused removed the clothes of the victim and committed rape thrice against her will and threatened her that if she will inform anyone, he would kill her and he left the place of incident. It is alleged that the victim started shouting, thereupon, people of village gathered there and she informed about the incident. It is further alleged that one Shilpaben took the clothes for the victim and, thereafter, called 108 ambulance and the victim was referred to the Hospital. Thereafter, the police visited the place of the incident and on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, the First Information Report (FIR) being C.R.No.I- 13/2016 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 377 and 506(2) of the IPC before the Langhanaj Police Station. 4. After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has arrested the accused and has filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as Sessions Case No.54 of 2016. 5. On the basis of the material available on record, the trial court has framed the charge on 09.12.2016 vide Exhibit 6 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 506(2) of the IPC and the same were explained to the him The accused has denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mehsana. 6. Considering the evidence on record, ultimately, the trial court has convicted the accused – appellant herein for the aforesaid offences and awarded the sentence as stated above. 7. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mehsana. 6. Considering the evidence on record, ultimately, the trial court has convicted the accused – appellant herein for the aforesaid offences and awarded the sentence as stated above. 7. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:- P.W.1 Dr.Prakash Pravinbhai Patva Doctor Exhibit 10 P.W.2 Rathod Sardarji Rajjuji Panch Exhibit 14 P.W.3 Rathod Sonaji Babuji Panch Exhibit 16 P.W.4 Sonalben Bharatbhai Goswami Witness Exhibit 17 P.W.5 Suryaben Sukhdevgiri Goswami Witness Exhibit 18 P.W.6 Shantaben Gabhabhai Senma Witness Exhibit 19 P.W.7 Jayantiji Gakurji Thakor Sarpanch Exhibit 20 P.W.8 Dr.Girishbhai Danabhai Jhala Doctor Exhibit 21 P.W.9 Shaileshbhai Kantibhai Parmar Son of victim Exhibit 26 P.W.10 Jayrambhai Taljabhai Desai PSO Exhibit 27 P.W.11 Prosecutrix Victim Exhibit 30 P.W.12 Gautambhai Pasabhai Parmar Panch Exhibit 32 P.W.13 Pandya Bipinkumar Pumanchand Panch Exhibit 38 P.W.14 Hiralben Dashrathbhai Parmar Witness Exhibit 42 P.W.15 Manjulaben Pasabhai Parmar Witness Exhibit 43 P.W.16 Parmar Rajendrakumar Shankarbhai Witness Exhibit 44 P.W.17 Goswami Bharatgiri Sukhdevgiri Witness Exhibit 45 P.W.18 Anil Ashokkumar Vachheta I.O. Exhibit 46 P.W.19 Kanubhai Becharbhai Patel I.O. Exhibit 49 8. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence:- Sr.No. Particulars Exhibit 1 Medical certificate of physical examination of the victim (General Hospital, Mehsana) 11 2 Police Yadi of physical examination of the victim 12 3 Laboratory report, report of 108, O.P.D. case papers, Indoor case papers and X-Ray of the victim 13 4 Panchnama of physical examination of the victim 15 5 Medical certificate of physical examination of the accused (General Hospital, Mehsana) 22 6 Police Yadi of physical examination of the accused 23 7 Case papers of the accused (General Hospital, Mehsana) 24 8 Index 2B with regard to sending sample of accused to the FSL 25 9 Copy of page no.67 of the station diary 28 10 Depute order 29 11 Complaint 31 12 Panchnama of the scene of offence 33 13 Panch slips signed by panchas which was found from the muddamal recovered from the scene of offence. 34 to 37 14 Panchnama of the physical examination of the accused and the clothes 39 15 Panch slip signed by the panch found from the muddamal clothes 40 41 16 Report sent for registration of offence 47 17 Telephone vardhi of PSO 48 18 Opinion of the FSL 50 19 Forwarding note of muddamal 51 20 Receipt with regard to receiving muddamal by the FSL 52 21 Letter of FSL Ahmedabad 53 22 Analysis report of the FSL 54 9. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been recorded wherein he denied having committed any offence and has stated that he is innocent. 10. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 09.06.2017 has convicted the accused as stated hereinabove. 11. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal. 12. Heard Mr. Hardik Raval, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.Tirthraj Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent – State of Gujarat at length. 13. Mr.Raval, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal. He has submitted that the trial court has committed serious error of law and facts in convicting the accused. He has submitted that the appellant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence of rape and the trial court has wrongly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. He has submitted that the history given by the accused in which he has stated that with the consent of otherside, he made physical relation with the victim and, therefore also, it is a case of consent. While referring to the evidence of P.W.1 Dr. Prakash Patva at Exhibit 10 and the medical certificate at Exhibit 11, he has further submitted that no injuries were found on the part of body of the victim and, therefore, the case put up by the prosecution with regard to forceful physical relation with the victim is baseless and without there being corroboration of the evidence of the doctor and panchnama of the place of occurrence and other panchnama which is supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that as per the case of the prosecution, the so-called incident took place in the vicinity of locality situated at Mahakali temple, however, none of the witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore also, the forcible physical relation with the victim is falsified. He has submitted that the story put forward by the victim with regard to torn of her clothes is also not supported by the sufficient material or evidence and it is not on record that the clothes worn by the victim is torn because of so-called alleged incident. According to him, there is no any eye witnesses of the so-called incident and the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution. He has submitted that trial court ought to have appreciated the deposition of the victim which suggests that after the incident one Shilpaben came there and took the clothes for the victim, but said Shilpaben has not been examined by the prosecution. He has submitted that there is delay in lodging the complaint. He has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is contrary to law and, therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court are illegal and bad in law and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 14. Per contra, Mr.Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State of Gujarat has vehemently argued that in fact, the appellant himself has given a history before the doctor with regard to the alleged incident and, therefore, he cannot get any benefit of his illegal act. He has submitted that the prosecution has proved the charge levelled against the appellant – accused beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the evidence of the doctors along with the medical certificate and FSL report have supported the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the case is proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and sufficient evidence before the Court and, therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction. He has submitted that the defence side has not cross-examined material witnesses. He has submitted that the defence side has not cross-examined material witnesses. He has submitted that the defence has not culled out any material which supports the case of the defence. He has submitted that so far as P.W.8 is concerned, this witness was not cross-examined by the defence side and, therefore, the evidence which is given in the chief- examination is proved. He has submitted that the trial court has not committed any error while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses in its true and proper spirit and, therefore, no interference is called for. He has submitted that the entire case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the witness and the medical evidence and there is clear and cogent evidence on record that the appellant has committed the said offence of rape. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no reason to set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and he has prayed to dismiss the appeal and confirm the impugned judgment and order rendered by the trial court. 15. I have perused the evidence on record as well as impugned judgment and order of the trial court and the record and proceedings of the case and the evidence of P.W.1 – Dr.Prakash Pravinbhai Patva at Exhibit 10 and P.W.8 Dr.Girishbhai Danabhai Jhala at Exhibit 21 and the evidence of other witnesses. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for both the sides. It is also relevant to note that the accused himself has stated before the doctor i.e. P.W.8, while recording history, that how and in which manner, the alleged incident took place and the said doctor was also not cross- examined by the defence side and, therefore, the evidence of P.W.8 is required to be led as it is which clearly suggests that the offence alleged against the appellant has rightly been proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing material. That the findings recorded by the trial court is in consonance with the provisions of law and settled legal principles. It is required to be noted that the victim is aged about 80 years and considering the injury caused to the victim, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no any enmity with the victim and the accused. It is required to be noted that the victim is aged about 80 years and considering the injury caused to the victim, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no any enmity with the victim and the accused. It also appears that the defence side has not proved false implication of the accused in the alleged offence by leading cogent evidence. So far as the deposition of P.W.16 Rajendrakumar Shankarbhai Parmar at Exhibit 44 is concerned, the defence has tried to support the case but the same is also not proved and, therefore, the false implication of the appellant is not believed by the trial court by appreciating the evidence of those witnesses and, hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction recorded by the trial court is in accordance with law. The defence side has not brought any contradiction/omission on record which supports its case. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.12 – Gautambhai Pasabhai Parmar at Exhibit 32 and the panchnama of the scene of offence at Exhibit 33, it appears that the version of this witness supports the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt which leads to prove the guilt of the accused. Considering the fact that the accused is convicted for the alleged offence and imposed minimum sentence and considering the legal settled principles, the present appellant is not entitled for any leniency or benefit of doubt. 16. Testimony of the prosecutrix/victim (i) “It is true that the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to convict an accused. It is absolutely correct that no self-respecting woman would falsely state that she had been raped and (ii) “Conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the Court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances which casts a shadow of doubt over her veracity”. 17. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances which cast a shadow of doubt over her veracity. 17. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances which cast a shadow of doubt over her veracity. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. 18. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the delay in lodging the first information report in such cases is immaterial. The proposition is too broadly stated to merit acceptance. It is no doubt true that mere delay in lodging the first information report is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the court must take notice. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case, and in a given case the court may be satisfied that the delay in lodging the report has been sufficiently explained. In the light of the totality of the evidence, the court of fact has to consider whether the delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the prosecution. That is a matter of appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay. Even in the absence of direct explanation there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. There are cases where much time is consumed in taking the injured to the hospital for medical aid and, therefore, the witnesses find no time to lodge the report promptly. There may also be cases where on account of fear and threats, witnesses may avoid going to the police station immediately. The time of occurrence, the distance to the police station, mode of conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on the question of delay in lodging of the report. There may also be cases where on account of fear and threats, witnesses may avoid going to the police station immediately. The time of occurrence, the distance to the police station, mode of conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on the question of delay in lodging of the report. It is also possible to conceive of cases where the victim and the members of his or her family belong to such a strata of society that they may not even be aware of their right to report the matter to the police and seek legal action, nor was any such advice available to them. In the case of sexual offences there is another consideration which may weigh in the mind of the court i.e. the initial hesitation of the victim to report the matter to the police which may affect her family life and family's reputation. Very often in such cases only after considerable persuasion the prosecutrix may be persuaded to disclose the true facts. There are also cases where the victim may choose to suffer the ignominy rather than to disclose the true facts which may cast a stigma on her for the rest of her life. These are case where the initial hesitation of the prosecutrix to disclose the true facts may provide a good explanation for the delay in lodging the report. In the ultimate analysis, what is the effect of delay in lodging the report with the police is a matter of appreciation of evidence, and the court must consider the delay in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case. Different cases have different facts and it is the totality of evidence and the impact that it has on the mind of the court that is important. No strait jacket formula can be evolved in such matters, and each case must rest on its own facts. It is settled law that however similar the circumstances, facts in one case cannot be used as a precedent to determine the conclusion on the facts in another. Thus mere delay in lodging of the report may not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but the delay has to be considered in the background of the facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the court of fact. 19. Thus mere delay in lodging of the report may not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but the delay has to be considered in the background of the facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the court of fact. 19. Any statement of rape is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit. While appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the courts must always keep in mind that no self-respecting woman would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and, therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for. 20. In the case of Sohan Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 1 SCC 68 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “when FIR by a Hindu lady is to be lodged with regard to commission of offence like rape, many questions would obviously crop up for consideration before one finally decides to lodge the FIR. It is difficult to appreciate the plight of the victim who has been criminally assaulted in such a manner.” 21. I have considered the submission of learned advocates for the parties and carefully perused the record. It is true that sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to convict an accused. It is also absolutely correct that no self-respecting woman would falsely state that she had been raped. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and should not be doubted. But, at the same time, the Court is supposed to evaluate the evidence of the victim more carefully if medical evidence does not support the commission of sexual assault on the victim. Testimony of the victim should be accepted but it would be subject to judicial scrutiny. 22. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the trial court, it clearly transpires that the trial court has properly appreciated the entire evidence on record and has taken into consideration the relevant aspects of the case and has also given cogent and convincing reasons in convicting the accused for the said offence and there is no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned judgment and order which deserves to be sustained. On re-appreciation of the evidence also, it clearly appears that the trial court has not committed any error of facts and law in convicting the accused for the charge levelled against him. 23. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 09.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Pocso), Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2016 is hereby confirmed. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith. 24. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, Criminal Misc. Application No.2 of 2023 does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.