JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J. The State has preferred this appeal, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the V Additional Sessions/Special Judge at Kalaburagi, in Sessions Case No.235/2015, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 447, 376, 324, 506 of IPC. 2. We have heard the arguments of the learned Additional SPP for the State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent and perused the evidence and material on record. 3. In brief, it is the case of prosecution that on 28.03.2015 at about 10.00 a.m., the accused criminally trespassed into the agricultural land of CW.6 (PW.5), in Bandarwad Village, wherein the victim (PW.1) was in the farm house and dragged her to the land of CW.13 (PW.23), thrust cloth into her mouth and committed forcible sexual intercourse. Further, he scratched her cheeks and caused bleeding injuries and also threatened her with dire consequences, if she disclosed the incident to others and thereby committed the charged offences. 4. The law was set into motion by PW.1 – victim, by lodging a complaint as per Ex.P.1. The A.S.I. – PW.17 of Deval Ganagapur Police Station, registered a case and issued the FIR - Ex.P.9 to the jurisdictional Court. Thereafter, he sent the victim for medical examination, to Government Hospital, Kalaburagi and handed over the investigation to the C.P.I. – PW.25. 5. On 30.03.2015, accused was produced before PW.25. He was subjected to medical examination. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Spot mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P.3. The articles seized were sent for FSL examination. Further investigation was taken over by the C.P.I. – PW.26, who after receipt of the FSL report and completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused. 6. The accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 376, 324 and 506 of IPC. Before the trial Court, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 27 and got marked Ex.Ps.1 to 18 and M.Os.1 to 3. The defence got marked Ex.D.1 i.e., the portion of the statement of PW.2. 7. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment, acquitted the accused of the charged offences, which is under challenge by the State. 8. Before the trial Court, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 27 and got marked Ex.Ps.1 to 18 and M.Os.1 to 3. The defence got marked Ex.D.1 i.e., the portion of the statement of PW.2. 7. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment, acquitted the accused of the charged offences, which is under challenge by the State. 8. Assailing the judgment, the learned Additional SPP has contended that the trial Court has totally ignored the material evidence of PW.1, which is corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses and therefore, the acquittal of the accused was not proper. He contended that the victim has categorically stated in her evidence that the accused by inserting cloth in her mouth and dragging her to the nearby field, committed rape on her. She has disclosed the incident to her husband, mother-in- law, owner of the land as well as other villagers, who have supported her version. He contended that the delay in lodging the complaint has been explained by PW.1 in Ex.P.1 itself, hence the delay, particularly in a case of this nature, where it is explained, is not fatal to the prosecution. 9. The learned Additional SPP has further contended that under spot mahazar – Ex.P.3, a black cloth and bangle pieces are recovered from the spot, which further lends support to the prosecution case and the panch witnesses to Ex.P.3 have also supported the case of prosecution. He therefore, contended that the reasons assigned by the trial Court to acquit the accused, holding that the evidence of PW.1 is infirm and not trustworthy etc., has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – accused has contended that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and the trial Court has noticed serious infirmities and contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 and other prosecution witnesses. The medical evidence do not support the evidence of PW.1 and therefore, the trial Court after considering the entire evidence and material on record, has acquitted the accused. He contended that this being an appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal, even if two views are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused, has to be accepted. He has therefore, sought to dismiss the appeal. 11. He contended that this being an appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal, even if two views are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused, has to be accepted. He has therefore, sought to dismiss the appeal. 11. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 28.03.2015 at about 10.00 a.m. in the land of one Basavaraj Hulasur - PW.5. In Ex.P.1, the victim has stated that she along with her husband (PW.21) used to work in the land of Basavaraj Hulasur, since three years. On 28.03.2015 at about 10.00 a.m., she was washing clothes in the farm house, at that time in the neighboring land, one Mohammad Inamdar (PW.11) and his tractor driver namely the accused were working. The accused came to the place where she was washing the clothes and dragged her by hand to the nearby sugarcane field, thrust cloth in her mouth, held her neck, caused bleeding injuries by scratching her cheek and committed rape on her. Thereafter, he threatened her with dire consequences, if she disclosed the incident to others and ran away from the spot. 12. The complaint was lodged on 29.03.2015 at about 3.00 p.m. In Ex.P.1, it is stated that to protect her reputation, she did not disclose the incident to her husband on that day, however on the next day i.e., on 29.03.2015 at 9.00 a.m., she revealed the entire incident to her husband (PW.21), mother-in-law (PW.2) and to Basavaraj Hulasur (PW.5) and thereafter, she came to the police station and lodged the complaint. 13. PW.9 is the scribe of Ex.P.1. He has deposed that on 29.03.2015 at about 12 noon, when he was at the bus stand, PW.1, PW.2 and PW.21 came weeping and revealed the incident to him. He took them to the police station and as per the say of PW.1, he wrote down Ex.P.1. 14. PW.17 - A.S.I. has deposed that on 29.03.2015 at about 3.00 p.m., the complainant came to the police station with a written complaint, on the basis which he registered the case and issued the FIR to the Court. 15. He took them to the police station and as per the say of PW.1, he wrote down Ex.P.1. 14. PW.17 - A.S.I. has deposed that on 29.03.2015 at about 3.00 p.m., the complainant came to the police station with a written complaint, on the basis which he registered the case and issued the FIR to the Court. 15. Admittedly, the incident took place on 28.03.2015 at about 10.00 a.m. and complaint was lodged on the next day at 3.00 p.m. It is the contention of learned Additional SPP that since the victim was threatened by the accused and fearing her reputation, she did not disclose the incident to her husband and other relatives on the same day. He has therefore contended that delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the prosecution. 16. Ex.P.2 is the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. A perusal of the said statement would reveal that on the same day, victim went to the nearby field where her husband was working and disclosed the incident to him. It is stated that thereafter, she was brought to the village and taken to the police station to lodge the complaint. 17. The above version given by the victim in Ex.P.2 before the learned Magistrate, clearly show that on the very same day, she disclosed the incident to her husband. Therefore, the contents of Ex.P.1 stating that due to fear, as there was threat by the accused etc., she did not disclose the incident to her husband and relatives on the same day, appears to be doubtful. 18. PW.9 – scribe of Ex.P.1 though stated that he took PW.1 and others to the police station, wherein he wrote down the complaint as stated by PW.1, PW.17-A.S.I. who registered the case after receiving Ex.P.1 from PW.1, has not at all stated about the presence of PW.9. On the other hand, in the cross-examination, though he admitted that Ex.P.1 was got written by PW.9, he stated that PW.9 did not accompany the complainant to the police station. 19. According to the prosecution, the accused inserted a black colour cloth into the mouth of PW.1 and committed rape and at that time her bangles were broken. The said black colour cloth (MO.1) and bangle pieces (MO.2) were recovered from the spot under Ex.P.3 in the presence of panch witnesses - PWs.3 and 4. 19. According to the prosecution, the accused inserted a black colour cloth into the mouth of PW.1 and committed rape and at that time her bangles were broken. The said black colour cloth (MO.1) and bangle pieces (MO.2) were recovered from the spot under Ex.P.3 in the presence of panch witnesses - PWs.3 and 4. It is no doubt both the panch witnesses have supported the case of prosecution, however, it is relevant to see that in Ex.P.1, PW.1 has nowhere stated that her bangles were broken, at the time of incident. Whereas, it is stated in Ex.P.2. Further, she has not stated that the accused thrust a cloth in her mouth in Ex.P2, on the other hand, she has stated that the accused held her mouth and nose tightly. 20. In view of the above discrepancy noticed in Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and the deposition of PW.1, delay in lodging the complaint assumes importance. Further, it is noticed that though the FIR was registered on 29.03.2015 at 3.00 p.m., PW.14 - the Police Constable who carried the FIR to the Court, has stated that he handed over the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate on 30.03.2015 at 8.00 a.m. He has tried to explain the delay, stating that the residence of the learned Magistrate was about 35 kilometer away. However, the fact remains that the incident took place on 28.03.2015 at 10.00 a.m., the complaint was lodged on the next day at 3.00 p.m. and the FIR was received by the Magistrate on 30.03.2015 at 8.00 a.m. 21. In the above background, it is necessary to examine the evidence of PW.1 and other prosecution witnesses. 22. It is relevant to see that apart from the victim, all the other witnesses examined by the prosecution are hearsay witnesses, according to whom the incident was narrated to them by PW.1. PWs.5 to 8 have stated that at about 10.00 a.m., when they went to the land, they saw PW.1, her husband and her mother-in-law weeping and when they enquired with them, they disclosed the incident. However, as per prosecution, the incident was revealed by PW.1 to her husband and mother-in-law on the next day. 23. In the case of Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. However, as per prosecution, the incident was revealed by PW.1 to her husband and mother-in-law on the next day. 23. In the case of Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130 , the Apex Court has held that, although the victim’s solitary evidence in matters related to sexual offence is generally deemed sufficient to hold an accused guilty, the conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecutrix’s testimony is found unreliable and insufficient due to identified flaws and lacunae. 24. The victim is admittedly aged about 25 years at the time of incident. There are material contradictions in her evidence and her complaint/Ex.P1 as well as Ex.P.2 - her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The explanation offered for delay in lodging the complaint is not satisfactory, as there is different version given in Ex.P.1 and the evidence of PW.1. Further, PW.20 – the Doctor who conducted medical examination of the victim has given final opinion stating that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse, but previous intercourse might have happened. As per FSL report-Ex.P.12, presence of blood stains, seminal stains and spermatozoa were not detected in the articles sent for examination. 25. The learned Additional SPP has contended that as per the medical evidence, certain injuries were noticed on the cheek of the victim, which lends corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 that there was forcible sexual intercourse committed on her. He further contended that PW.20 has stated that injuries on the body could be suggestive of resistance from the victim. 26. In Ex.P.2 - statement, PW.1 has not at all stated about she sustaining injuries to her cheek. In the cross-examination conducted by the defence, PW.20 has stated that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.12 may be caused by voluntarily falling on the blunt surface of the hard ground. She further stated that she has not noticed any abrasions, contusions on the wrists and that the victim has not stated the history of sexual assault before her. Further, if a lady is dragged by force and assaulted sexually, she would have sustained abrasions, contusions and lacerations on whole of the dorsal aspect of neck, back, buttocks, hands and legs and in this case, she has not noticed such injuries on the body of the victim. Further, if a lady is dragged by force and assaulted sexually, she would have sustained abrasions, contusions and lacerations on whole of the dorsal aspect of neck, back, buttocks, hands and legs and in this case, she has not noticed such injuries on the body of the victim. Further, if the victim is smothered by cloth, saliva would be present on the cloth and the said cloth would be sent to the FSL and saliva would have been detected, but in this case the I.O. has not sent the cloth used by the accused at the time of sexual assault, for medical examination. 27. Having appreciated the evidence of PW.1, we are of the view that her evidence is not reliable and trustworthy and not safe to convict the accused. The trial Court, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record and giving elaborate reasons, has acquitted the accused. We find that the reasons assigned are in accordance with law. 28. This being an appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal, this Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal, keeping in mind that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is further strengthened. We do not find any compelling reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and reverse the findings recorded therein. 29. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.