The State has come up with this appeal, when the respondent was acquitted of the charges for the offence under Section 376 IPC. PW4, the father of the victim filed a private complaint as CMP.No.678/91 before the then Second Class Magistrate, Parappanagady. It was on 19.2.1991. The Magistrate forwarded it to the police in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. There upon the police registered Ext.P.9 FIR as Crime No.33/91 of Thirurangadi police station. PW14 and PW15 conducted investigation. Successor to PW15 laid the charges. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked 11 documents. The defence evidence consists of the oral testimony of DWs.1 to 6 and Exts.D1 to D15.

2. It is contended by the Public Prosecutor that the victim being a minor aged 15 years in March, 1990, below the consenting age provided under clause sixthly of Section 375 IPC and being a student of 7th standard and as there is evidence of she being pregnant and giving birth to a child, the factum of rape has been proved in this case. Of course there was delay in preferring Ex.P1 complaint by about 11 months and 4 days. It has been sufficiently explained through PWs.2, 3 and 4 that the victim did not divulge