An unexplained, significant delay in lodging an FIR, combined with potential motives for false implication, casts doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution's case. In such circumstances, the court must extend the benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused, rendering a conviction unsustainable.

S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant- K. Rajeswar Rao @ Raju has filed the present Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment dated 25.11.1999 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in G.R Case No.1022 of 1991, whereby he has been found guilty of the charges under Sections 452/323 and Section 506/34 of the IPC. On that count, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 452/34 of the IPC, R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 325/34 of the IPC and R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 506/34 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Heard Ms. Upasika Samantaray, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent -State.

3. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 13.11.1991, the accused- Rajeswar Rao along with the co-accused Bainath Badtia and Sankarsan Raula @ Sankar trespassed into the residence of the informant Saraswati Behera at Aravindanagar, Berhampur and abused her in obscene language. When the informant protested such unauthorized entry and indecent behavior of the accused persons, accused Rajeswar Rao assaulted her with an iron rod causing fracture on her left forearm. Seeing this abuse and attack on her mother, Sunita Behera protested and tried to intervene, but the accused persons, particularly, Rajeswar Rao manhandled her outraging her modesty. The accused persons then threatened the informant that, if she would report the matter to the police authorities, then they would lift her daughter and would also further assault. It is said that after the incident, injured Saraswati was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Berhampur, where she was admitted as an indoor patient for nearly a month. While she was in the hospital, she sent a written report to the Police Station and the police authorities investigated into the case, filed the charge sheet. The accused persons, denying the charges, claimed trial.

4. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 was the doctor, who treated the injured informant and submitted the injury report to the police. P.W.2 was a post-occurrence witness, who did not support the prosecution allegation. P.W.3 was the Investigating Officer. P.W.4 is the informant Saraswati Behera, who has spoken about the entire occurrence. P.W.5 is her daughter Sunita Behera, who was also an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.6 is the son of the informant, who reached the spot after the occurrence and took the mother to the hospital and later on scribed the report and took the report to the Police Station.

5. After analysis of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court arrived at the following conclusion:

“12. The evidence of P.W.4 is thus corroborated by eye witness, P.W.5, post occurrence witness P.W.6, medical evidence of the doctor P.W.1, evidence of the I.O. and the documents like, F.I.R., injury report and bed-head ticket. The medical evidence, oral and documentary leave no room for any doubt that P.W.4 had fracture and grievous injury on her left fore-arm and that such injury was caused with hard and blunt object like, iron rod. Similarly the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 and F.I.R. clearly show that accused K. Rajeswar Rao inflicted that g