The delay in lodging the FIR, discrepancies in witness statements, and contradictions in evidence can undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case and lead to the dismissal of the conviction and sentence.

Nirmal Singh, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order 12/14-2-2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000.00 . In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo R. I. for nine months under Section 302, IPC. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 . In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo R. I. for six months under Section 328, IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14-1-1999 at about 8.30 p.m. Sada Ram and his brother Prithvi were watching television. Wife of Sada Ram told him that Babli, his daughter, had gone to tie the he-calf and had not returned. Sada Ram searched for Babli here and there. Then he heard a noise from the roof. He went there and saw that Sanjay had gagged the mouth of Babli with his hand while she was trying to free herself. Sada Ram got released Babli from the clutches of Sanjay. In the meantime, Prithvi also came there. Sanjay ran away from the spot. They brought Babli down-stairs. She complained of vomiting. When they enquired from Babli that what happened, she told that Sanjay wanted to commit rape on her. but when she resisted, he forcibly put a sulphas tablet in her mouth and pressed her mouth, due to which some part of it went inside her stomach and some part was visible in the vomiting. When the condition of Babli became serious, Sada Ram along with Sube Singh, Bahadur Singh and Rati Ram took her to the hospital in a private car and got her admitted but during treatment, she breathed her last. On receipt of information. ASI Hari Chand went to General Hospital. Charkhi Dadri and recorded the statement of Sada Ram, Ex. PK, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PK/1 was recorded.

3. The accused surrendered in the Court on 9-2-1999. He was interrogated by PW-15 Sl Sube Singh on 10-2-1999. On interrogation, he made a disclosure statement, Ex. PT, that he had kept concealed a tablet in Dibi in his residential house and could get the same recovered. The said statement was attested by PWs. In pursuance of disclosure statement, the accused led the police party to the place of disclosure and got recovered the celphos tablet, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PU.

4. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented and he was charge-sheeted under Sections 302 and 328, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Roshan Lal, PW-2- Dr. U. S. Disodia, who medically examined Babli daughter of Sada Ram, PW-3-Dr. Rajiv Sain, PW-4 Constable Virshakti Singh, draftsman, PW-5 Constable Vikram Singh, PW-6-Moharrir Head Constable Siri Ram, PW-7-UGC Karan Singh, PW-8- Constable Jag Ram, PW-9 Head Constable Siriom, PW-10 Dr. Anil Chaudhary, PW-11 Sanjiv Kumar, PW-12 Sada Ram, complainant, PW-13-Prithvi, PW-14 Assistant Sub Inspector Hari Charan Singh and PW-15 Sub Inspector Sube Singh.

6. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to explain the incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded innocence and alleged false implication due to party faction in the village.

7. When the accused was called to lead evidence in defence, he examined DW-1 Sube Singh and DW-2 Tara Chand Lamba.

8. The learned trial Court, after hearing the defence counsel and learned PP for the State found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him vide judgment and order dated 12/14-2-2003 as stated in paragraph 1 of the judgment, against which the present appeal has been filed.

9. Mr. Cheema, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant on the ground that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its