The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible testimony and medical evidence to substantiate the charge of rape, discrediting claims of false implication, and explaining the delay in filing the first information report.

A. A. Desai, C. J. and M. C. Jain, J. : The second Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun on the basis of testimony of P. W. 1 Mona (prosecutrix) and her-mother P.W.2 ,Sumitra Devi receded the finding of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P. C. against the appellant accused for having committed rape on the prosecutrix, P.W.1 Mona on 10.4.2000 at about 11 p.m. in his own house. The conviction and sentence has been' challenged by the appellant mainly on the ground that the appellant has been falsely implicated out of grievance or vengeance and secondly story as set up by the prosecution was improbable.

2. Having 'regard to the points as raised, we have examined the testimony of two witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Mona and P. W. 2 Sumitra Devi and the record.

3. It is revealed from their testimony that prosecutrix Mond P. W. 1 along with her two brothers on the day of incident at about 9.30 p.m. went to the house of the accused to witness the T. V. serial. After sometime, her brothers had left the place. Mona, who was a child of about 8-9 years as per medical report Ex. Ka.4 at the relevant time however, remained there. The accused gagged her mouth and committed rape on her. She continued to lie in the house of the accused unconscious and left his house early in the morning and reached to the place of her parents. The incident was reported to P. W. 2 Sumitra Devi. However, she lodged F.I. R. on 16 4.2000 at 11 a.m. vide Ex. Ka.1.

4. With the assistance of learned counsel, we have examined the testimony of doctor as well as medical report which, is marked as Ex. Ka. 2 and supplementary report Ex. Ka. 3 with X-ray report Ex. Ka. 4. The medical evidence has disclosed that there had been a laceration on vagina which was in the process of healing. It is particularly reported that hymen was torn. The medical evidence render corroboration to the testimony of P. W. 1 Mona and P. W. 2 Sumitra Devi coupled with Ex. Ka. 1 which is first information report. The prosecution thus substantiated the charge beyond spell of doubt.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Mal1gal Singh Chauhan tried to assail the prosecution case on the ground that there is inordinate delay in filing the first information report and that creates a serious doubt about the genuineness of the claim of the prosecutrix. We have also examined this aspect in great detail.

6. Undisputedly, P W. 2 Sumitra Devi is a rustic lady from a village. Her husband moves outside for the livelihood as a daily wage earner. At the relevant time he was not available at home. Therefore he could not immediately take her daughter to the police station or for medical examination. The delay as occurred in lodging the F.I.R. has sufficiently been explained by her testimony as well as in the F.I.R. The defence, therefore, could not avail of anything to discredit the claim of the prosecution.

7. Mr. Mangal Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant, after going through the record, mainly, and principally urged that the story of the prosecution is concocted and appellant was falsely implicated. According to the learned counsel for the defence, P. W. 2 Sumitra Devi, mother of the prosecutrix, was a lady of easy virtue. At some other occasion, the appellant reported about her activities to her husband. Because of that event, the mother of prosecutrix was cherishing vengeance and she gave a threat to implicate the accused. He tried august this defence in his examine under Section 313, Cr. P. C. In sup this defence, he has examined D. aran Bahadur and D. W. 2 Shiv They' tried to depose in the same tune.

8. We examined their testimony What is fatal for the defence is that the defence as set up was not put to P. W. 2 Sumitra Devi while she was under cross-examination of the defence. The defence is palpably false and set up as an afterthought. Even otherwise, the defence has not brought anything in cross-examination to discredit the testimony P. W. 1 & P. W. 2.

9. Moreover, the m