2013(2)RLW1371, 2013(3)SCALE550, (2013)3SCC791, 2013IV AD (S.C.) 83, AIR2013SC1497, 2013(2)AJR463, 2013(1)ALD(Cri)985, 2013 (81) ALLCC 1001, 116(2013)CLT554, 2013CriLJ2062, 2013(2)Crimes83(SC), 2013(2)J.L.J.R.183, 2013(2)JCC1260, 2013(2)JCC1265, JT2013(4)SC110, 2013(2)MLJ(Crl)632, 2013(II)OLR118, 2013(2)PLJR294, 2013(2)RCR(Criminal)346, 

The trial court as well as the High Court should have appreciated the evidence on record with regard to delay and not giving proper explanation regarding delay of 11 days in filing FIR by the prosecutrix and non-examination of complainant witnesses, viz. the Doctor and the I.O. which has not only caused prejudice to the case of the appellant but also the case of prosecution has created reasonable doubt in the mind of this Court. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must enure to the appellant. As we have stated above the testimony of the prosecutrix is most unnatural and improbable to believe and therefore it does not inspire confidence for acceptance of the same for sustaining the conviction and sentence. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned judgment requires to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, we Page 25 allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.  If the appellant has executed the bail bonds, the same may be discharged.

Indian Penal Code, 1860