The central legal point established in the judgment is the immateriality of the prosecutrix's consent due to her age, the inadmissibility of characterizing a rape victim based on her previous sexual behavior, and the significance of delay in lodging the complaint in sexual offence cases.

This Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 25th November, 2015 in Special (Child) Case No. 15/2015 delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, by which the learned Judge has convicted the appellant/accused for offence punishable under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer RI for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for 30 days. The appellant was also convicted under section 3 read with section 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; however no separate sentence is imposed against him.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that, prosecutrix (PW1) was residing at village Jamsala, Tq. Sindewahi, Dist. Chandrapur, along with other family members. The prosecutrix, at the relevant time, was aged about 13-years, and was studying in VIIth standard. The appellant too is the resident of the same village. On the date of the alleged incident, i.e. 22-12-2013 at about 8.00 pm, the prosecutrix and her mother were near the chulha in the verandah of their house. The father of the prosecutrix had gone out for his work. The prosecutrix went to back side of her house for answering nature’s call, at that time, the appellant arrived. He called the prosecutrix, however she refused to go with him. On this, the appellant forcibly caught hold of the hands of the prosecutrix and took her in an open space. The appellant removed the clothes of the prosecutrix and he too also removed his clothes and committed sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix started shouting. On hearing the cry, the mother of the prosecutrix rushed to that place. She abused the appellant and assaulted him by means of a stick. The appellant then fled away. As it was a night time, on the next day, the prosecutrix along with her mother proceeded to Sindewahi Police Station and lodged the complaint against the appellant. At the relevant time, WPC Lata Shende (PW 4) was attached to Sindewahi Police Station. She scribed the report of the prosecutrix (Exh.16) and referred her to the Government Hospital, Chandrapur for the purpose of medical examination. Thereafter API-Devanand Alone (PW 13) registered the offence on the basis of the said complaint. API Alone (PW13) recorded the spot panchnama. He collected the birth certificate of the prosecutrix and took charge of the clothes of the prosecutrix as well as the appellant. He took their blood samples. He arrested the appellant. He sent the blood samples and other samples to the Chemical Aalyser for analysis and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, PW13 submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant in the competent Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant. The trial was conducted and on analysis of the evidence and after hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant, as aforesaid. Hence, this Appeal.

3. Heard Shri C. R. Thakur, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.B. Bissa, the learned APP for the respondent-State. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is illegal and perverse inasmuch as the learned Judge has not considered the discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses and has also failed to consider that there were no fresh injuries on the private part of the prosecutrixPW1. The learned Judge has failed to consider the CA report which did not support the prosecution case in any manner. Au contraire, the learned APP has contended that the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant, after considering the entire evidence on record in its right perspective.

4. In order to consider the rival contentions of the both the sides, I have meticulously gone through the record of the case. As far as the testimony of prosecutrix (PW1) is concerned, she has deposed before the Court that on