1. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.2.2008 at about 1.00 p.m., the complainant, Kumari Lakshmidevi, was harvesting the tamarind fruits in the backyard of her house. The front door was closed. She was cleaning the tamarind fruits. There was nobody in the house. At about 1.00 p.m., the accused who was the neighbor of the complainant, came and asked her to come with him. When she refused, he came near the complainant, closed her mouth, dragged her into the house, locked the door and committed rape on her. She cried for help. At that time, PW2 Gowramma her aunt, knocked on the door. On hearing the same, the accused hid in the house. When the complainant’s aunt opened the door and entered into the house, he ran away.

2. The same was brought to the notice of the parents of the complainant. They tried to solve the issue by intervention of the elders, but nothing came of it. On 17.2.2008, a complaint was lodged and a case was registered in Crime No.30/08 for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 376 of IPC. Investigation was taken up and the accused was arrested. Charge Sheet was field. The matter was set down for trial.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked EX.P1 to P12. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 448 and 376 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 448 of I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the same, accused has filed this appeal.

4. (a) Sri Y.S. Shiva Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court has committed an error in misreading the evidence and material on record. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused. There is delay of two days in lodging the complaint. The incident is said to have taken place on 15.2.2008 and the complaint was lodged on 17.2.2008. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. In its absence, the case of the prosecution has become fatal and cannot be accepted.

(b) The evidence of the victim-PW1 cannot be accepted. The medical evidence led in by the prosecution does not corroborate the evidence of the victim. The evidence of the doctor does not indicate any offence of rape committed on the victim. Hence, in the absence of medical evidence corroborating the prosecution case, the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted. It is further contended that there was enmity between the family of the complainant and that of the accused and in order to wreck vengeance, a false complaint was lodged against the accused. Hence, on this ground also the appellant requires to be acquitted.

5. (a) On the other hand, the learned SPP disputes the same. He contends that in so far as the delay is concerned, the prosecution has clearly established the reasons for the same; that immediately after the incident, the family of the complainant approached the family of the accused to settle the dispute amicably, instead of lodging a complaint. Thereafter, they approached the elders for an amicable settlement of the matter and since nothing came of it, a complaint was lodged. Hence, the delay has been satisfactorily explained.

(b) The evidence of the victim-PW1 would clearly indicate the brutal offence committed on her. She has protested as much as possible to save herself. She was a young girl, aged about 18 to 20 years as per the medical report. At her tender age, whatever possible, she has done to save herself. Corroborating the evidence of PW1, it is submitted that the victim was examined by the Doctor two days after the incident took place. Therefore, there may be an irregularity in the medical report. If she was examined on the date of offence, the result would have been otherwise. Th