The reliability of the victim's testimony, the significance of delay in lodging complaints of sexual offenses, and the need for assurance to support the prosecutrix's testimony were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

1. The appellant/accused has preferred the present Appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.08.2015 in Sessions Case No. 54/2015 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 5(m) read with section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in the alternative, u/s. 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- , in default, to suffer RI for five months.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that, in the year 2015 the complainantPW1Smt. Sunanda Pathade was residing with her husband and three children at Jodmod, Aurangpura, Dist. Amravati. The victim at the relevant time was aged about 9years. The husband of the complainant was working as a labourer in a Printing Press at Amravati. The victim was studying in 5th standard at Ramkrishna Vidyalaya, Amaravati. The accused was residing in the same locality. It is the case of the prosecution that the friends of the victim, namely, Amrita was residing adjacent to the house of the accused. The victim used to visit the house of Amrita very often. On 24.1.2015 at about 9.00 am, as usual, the complainant had gone to the mess of HVMP for cooking food. Her husband had gone out for work. Her three children were in the house. When the complainant returned back between 1.00 and 1.30 pn, she saw that her daughter (victim) was weeping and was repeatedly going for urination. On making enquiry with her daughter, she informed her that she was having inflammation at her urination organ (private parts). At that time, she was weeping. On further enquiry, the victim informed her mother that she had gone out near the house of Nishikant Kaka. He called her inside his house. Nishikant Kaka sent her friends outside and told her that he would pay her Rs. 10/for purchasing eatables and on saying this he closed the door. The victim further informed her mother that the accused pulled her nicker indulged in sex with her. Further the victim informed her mother that she had pains in her vagina. On hearing this, the complainant went to the house of the accused and made enquiry about the said incident. However he flatly denied that he had committed such a heinous act. After the husband of the complainant returned home at about 7 to 7.30 pm, she narrated the incident to him. On the next day, i.e. 25.1.2015 at about 3.30 p.m, the complainant proceeded to the Police Station and lodged her complaint (Exh. 8). On the basis of said complaint, offence was registered at Kotwali Police station vide Crime No. 22/2015 u/s 376 of IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The victim was referred for medical examination. The statement of the complainant as well as the victim was recorded by a lady Magistrate u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. The clothes of the victim as well as that of the accused, were taken charge by the Police and were sent to CA office for analysis. After completion of investigation, charge was framed by the learned trial Judge. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial. The accused examined defence witness on his behalf. According to the defence witness, at the time of of the incident, the accused was not present in his house and had gone to attend his work. It is further defence of the accused that there was a quarrel between the complainant and the accused on the count of some money lending transaction.

3. I have heard Shri Babrekar, the learned counsel for the appellant and N.H.Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. I have meticulously gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has not considered the discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, so also failed to consider that although the hymen of the victim was noticed in torn condition by the Medical