The delay in lodging the FIR in cases of sexual assault is natural in traditional societies and does not discredit the victim's testimony. The absence of medical evidence does not discredit the prosecutrix's version, and her testimony, if found credible, requires no corroboration.

JUDGMENT

K.K. Sonawane, J. - These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.6.2015 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 367 of 2013.. The appellant-original accused, in Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2015, put in question the validity and propriety of the fndings of conviction and resultant sentence awarded to him for the ofence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act 2012 as well as for the ofence punishable under Section 384 and 506 of IPC. The learned trial court imposed the following sentence of imprisonment and fne on the appellant :-

Being dissatisfed with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence, the appellant-accused, taking recourse of remedy under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. preferred the appeal to redress his grievances. Simultaneously, the prosecution also found not satisfed with the quantum of punishment inficted on the appellant-accused as well as his acquittal for the ofence under Section 376(2)(i), 328 and 504 of IPC. Therefore, the prosecution, invoking provisions under Section 377 and 378 of Cr.P.C. fled the criminal appeals No. 708/2015 and 876/2018, for substantial justice.

All these appeals arise from one and the same judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence passed by the Sessions Judge Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 367 of 2013, therefore, these appeals are dealt with together for its adjudication on merit by this common judgment.

2. The prosecution case, sans unnecessary details is that, the ill-fated minor prosecutrix - 16 year old - studying in 12th standard was residing with parents, brother and other members of her family. The appellant-accused came in contract with the prosecutrix being resident of the same locality. He gradually developed intimacy with the prosecutrix. According to prosecution, the appellant-accused on 8.6.2012 visited to the prosecutrix when she was alone at home. He had also brought a bottle of soft drink with him having intoxicated substance in it. He made the prosecutrix to drink the same. Thereafter, the appellant-accused started vulgar and indecent act with the prosecutrix. It has been alleged that the victim-prosecutrix attempted to oppose the lustful misconduct of appellant - accused. But, he did not pay any heed to her demur and went on to slake his sexual urge. The appellant-accused forcibly ravished the minor prosecutrix and also given threats of life to her if she disclose the incident to her parents or anybody else. The frantic prosecutrix maintained silence and did not divulge the alleged incident to anybody else. Thereafter, she started avoiding to maintain relation with the appellant-accused, but her endeavour found unavailing. The appellant-accused continuously persuaded her and at last, he showed the video-clip recorded by him in his cellphone. It was the recording of sexual act committed by the appellant-accused with the prosecutrix. On seeing the video-clip, the prosecutrix was aghast and requested him not to spoil her life. However, the appellant-accused under the pretext of threats to make the video clip public on social media, used to ravish the minor prosecutrix time and again at various places. Meanwhile, the appellant-accused also given some tablets/pills to the prosecutrix for termination of pregnancy. According to prosecution, the appellantaccused did not stop at this stage of black-mailing the prosecut