1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State/ Prosecution.

2. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 8th May, 2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Majalgaon, in Special Case No. 14 of 2014, whereby he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 376 (2), 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short).

3. It is alleged that the appellant entered into the house of the informant namely Parvati Mahadeo Pawar, situate at village Chatgaon, Taluka Dharur District Beed on 17th June, 2014 between 1.00 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. and committed rape on her daughter aged about 17 years, who was a mentally retarded child. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant, crime No. 53 of 2014 came to be registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 452, 324, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and also under Sections 6, 7, 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”, for short). The investigation followed. After completion of the investigation, the appellant came to be charge-sheeted for the above mentioned offences.

4. The learned Trial Judge framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 376(2), 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act vide Exh-10. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to establish guilt of the appellant. After evaluating the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Trial Judge held that the prosecution failed to establish that the victim girl was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident. He, therefore, acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. However, the learned Judge found sufficient evidence on record to establish guilt of the appellant for the above mentioned offences under the IPC. He, therefore, convicted the appellant for the said offences and sentenced him as under:

5. The appellant deposited the amount of fine of Rs.2,500/- in the trial Court. The acquittal of the appellant of the offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, has not been challenged by the prosecution. As such, the said part of the impugned judgment and order has attained finality.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there has been unexplained delay in lodging the FIR after the alleged incident, which creates doubt about the case of prosecution. According to him, the evidence of the witnesses and particularly that of the victim and her mother, by itself, would not be sufficient to bring home guilt to the appellant for the above mentioned offences. According to him, the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. The report of the Chemical Analyst also does not connect the appellant with the incident in question. According to him, due to a civil dispute in respect of a house property, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record correctly and properly and has wrongly convicted the appellant.

7. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submits that the victim girl, though is mentally retarded could communicate the incident to her mother/informant when she came back home in the evening. The husband of the informant also was not at home. After he came back home, the mother of the victim informed him ab