Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1223 of 2010 16.11.2010 Present: Mr. Satyen Vaidya, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. for the respondent-State. Heard and gone through the record. Case under Section, 376 IPC has been registered against the petitioner. He has been arrested in that case. Report was lodged by the prosecutrix, who is more than 18 years of age, six days after the occurrence. Occurrence took place on 5.9.2010. Report was lodged on 11.9.2010. Prosecutrix was medically examined on 12.9.2010. Medical report corroborates the allegation of rape made by the prosecutrix, inasmuch as the report suggests that prior to the alleged occurrence, the prosecutrix was virgin. Delay in lodging the FIR has been explained by the prosecutrix. According to her, she was under threat from the petitioner and also she felt that the act of rape committed against her would put her parents to ignominy. Learned counsel says that the allegation that the petitioner went to the place of the prosecutrix accompanied by his sister’s mother-in-law and offered to pay money to the prosecutrix in case she allowed him to have sexual intercourse with her is un-believable. May be, what the counsel submits is not believable but as regards the allegation of rape, medical evidence Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1223 of 2010 corroborates the version of the prosecutrix. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Copy Dasti. (Surjit Singh), J. November 16, 2010, (vs)