The applicant was convicted under section 354 IPC and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- by the trial Magistrate. Sessions Judge Chhatarpur in Cr. A. No. 24/92 confirmed this finding and sentence which is under challenge in this revision.

Short facts are that Ramkuwarbai (P.W. 1) was proceeding from her village to her well with a cane filled with milk when the applicant caught of her hand and tried to drag her. He uttered words suggesting that he wanted to commit sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix raised alarm which attracted Damru (P.W. 5) and Halka (P.W. 8). On their arrival the petitioner ran away. The prosecutrix informed her parents of this incident the same day. Her father and uncle went to the police station but no action was taken. After about twenty days the prosecutrix left for her husband's place. After about six months she made a written complaint to the S.P. (Ex. P. 4) which ultimately resulted in applicant's prosecution and conviction as aforesaid.

The submission is that there was clear indication of the fact that the incident was reported promptly in the police station and the report was taken down. This was the first information report. The prosecution suppressed it. In such circumstances the written report lodged by the prosecutrix after six months of the incident was wrongly accepted as the first information report lodged by the prosecutrix by the Courts below. Placing reliance on Nurugan v. State by Inspector of Police [1994 (1) Crimes 137] it was contended that the suppression of the first information report and the inordinate delay of six months in making the written report which formed the basis of prosecution in this case were sufficient to discredit the prosecution case and the Courts below were led away by entirely uncalled for consideration in accepting the truth of the prosecution case. The fact that the evidence showed reporting of the incident promptly in the police station is not disputed. The prosecutrix herself admitted that consequent to this prompt report the police came to her village and made inquiry in the case. Therefore, the submission has to be accepted that the first information report in this case was suppressed. The reasoning given by the learned appellate Court that had the report been false the prosecutrix could have mentioned a false date of the incident also to make the report prompt, appears to be misconceived as accepting this reasoning the case law which has developed on the delay in presenting the first information report will stand washed off. Similarly the reasoning that in view of the allegation of apathy on the part of Bamitha police the prosecution version based on the written report and duly supported by independent witnesses was worthy of reliance appears to be off the track. In Nurugan's case (supra) the following observation of the Supreme Court in Thulia Kali v. State of Tamilnadu (AIR 1973 SC 501) was referred :

"First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the First Information Report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets benefit of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in exaggarated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the First Information Report should be satisfactorily