The delay in filing a complaint without a satisfactory explanation can raise doubts about the credibility of the evidence and undermine the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the II Additional District and Sessions (Special) Judge, D.K., Mangaluru in Special Case No.85/2015 dated 17.10.2018.

2. This case has been posted for hearing on interlocutory application and with the consent of the learned High Court Government Pleader, same is taken up for final disposal.

3. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant complainant. Notice to respondent accused is dispensed with.

4. The genesis of the case of prosecution in brief is that on 5.3.2014 at 5.30 p.m. victim P.W.1 aged about 15 years was coming back home after her school. The accused who was known to the victim came near her on a motorcycle and asked her to give the mobile number, for which, she told that she is not having the mobile number and thereafter, accused told her that he would drop her home. The victim girl got frightened and started walking fast. Accused followed her and pulled her hand and tried to outrage her modesty. At that time, P.Ws.2 and 3 came and asked the victim as to what happened. Immediately, accused left the spot on his motorcycle. Victim was taken to house and on the third day, complaint was registered. On the basis of the complaint, case was registered in Crime No.40/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A (i) (iv) of IPC and under Sections 11(1) and 12 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, the Special Court took cognizance and secured the presence of the accused. After following the formalities, charge was framed and read over to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, trial was fixed. In order to prove the case of prosecution, it has got examined 12 witnesses and got marked 9 documents. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said order, the State is before this Court.

5. The main grounds urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader are that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below is invalid, contrary to law, evidence and material placed on record. It is his submission that though there is evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and there is corroboration in their evidence, the trial Court ignoring their evidence has come to a wrong conclusion in acquitting the accused. It is his further submission that accused has committed a serious offence of outraging the modesty and the victim herself has clearly stated that he has pulled her hand with an intention to outrage her modesty. The delay in filing the appeal has been properly explained and even if there is delay, it is not fatal to the case of prosecution. The trial Court only on the basis of delay and not relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 has wrongly acquitted the accused. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order.

6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records including the documents which were made available by the learned High Court Government Pleader.

7. P.W.1 is the victim. In her evidence, she has deposed that usually, she used to go to school and come back home at 5.30 p.m. On 5.3.2015 she was coming back from the school. When she came near Muthramajalu transformer, the accused came from backside on a motorcycle and stopped the vehicle and asked her name, for which, she told her name as Lavanya and he asked as to why she is coming alone and that where are her friends. She told that her friend is coming behind. He asked whether she is having a mobile number, for which victim replied that she is not having the mobile. Accused asked as to whether her mother is having a mobile phone and though she knew the mobile number, she told that she does not know the number. It is further sta