Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that false implication of the appellant is apparent on the face of it. It is contended that there is an unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR. The incident in question is stated to have taken place on 02.03.2011 at 10.30 p.m. The matter was reported on 03.03.2011 at 6.15 p.m. There is no plausible explanation for the said delay. Moreover, age of the prosecutrix/victim has not been proved on record. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that the clothes of the victim, which the appellant is stated to have taken along with him while fleeing from the spot, were never recovered. This casts a serious doubt on the prosecution version. It is further argued that the learned trial Court has not considered the defence evidence in the correct perspective. The appellant, it is submitted, has clearly proved his false implication due to financial dealing of the appellant with the victim's father. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned judgment and order should be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges against him. In the alternate, it is prayed that the appellant has undergone actual imprisonment of five years and over nine months of the sentence imposed upon him. In case, the period of remission is included, the appellant has undergone over six years of the sentence imposed upon him. The appellant, it is stated, is not involved in any other criminal case. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of ten years imposed upon the appellant should be reduced to that of already undergone or at least to seven years i.e. the minimum prescribed punishment for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. (The present case relates to an incident of 02.03.2011 i.e. prior
