Ashutosh Kumar, J. – We have heard Mr. Pranav Kumar and Ms. Y. Madhavi, learned Advocates for the appellant and the victim respectively. The State is represented by Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned APP.

2. The appellant, who is the father of the victim, has been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 vide judgment dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO (W), Muzaffarpur in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 72 of 2021. Vide Order dated 28.02.2023, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of which, to further suffer imprisonment for one year. The fine so paid has been directed to be given to the victim, who is the daughter of the appellant.

3. The DLSA, Muzaffarpur has also been requested to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the victim.

4. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in view of Section 42 of the Act.

5. The harrowing tale by a fourteen year old girl would have made up for one of the most abominable crimes under the sun but for the accusation being found to be absolutely groundless.

6. On 12.09.2021, the victim (P.W. 1) lodged a written report before the officer-in-charge of Mahila Police Station, Muzaffarpur, alleging that way back in the month of September, 2018, the appellant under the pretence of treating her, subjected her to sexual intercourse and threatened her not to tell about the incident to anybody. However, she communicated this fact to her mother (P.W. 3), who, in turn, informed the brother of the victim, a 24 year old person living in Mumbai whereafter the written report was lodged.

7. According to the victim, the appellant had married again, during the subsistence of his marriage with her mother, sometimes in April, 2021.

8. On the basis of the aforenoted written report, Mahila P.S. Case No. 72 of 2021 dated 12.09.2021 under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was registered for investigation against the appellant.

9. The appellant is said to be an employee of the North Bihar Gramin Bank, posted at Motihari. He was arrested a day after the lodging of the written report.

10. The victim had got her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 14th of September, 2021 in which she denied to have been subjected to any sexual act by her father. In fact, she narrated before the Magistrate that because of the abusive behaviour of her father, the case was lodged so that he is kept at bay.

11. Similar statements were made by the brother and the mother of the victim on the same day before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In fact, the brother of the victim had stated that his mother is extremely temperamental and because of some marital dispute between them, the subject FIR was lodged.

12. The mother of the victim was aggrieved by the appellant because the appellant had married another woman with whom he had been residing at Motihari.

13. However, at the Trial, the victim has supported the prosecution case in its entirety. She has repeated the allegation of the appellant having committed rape on her a number of times. She has also stated before the Trial Court that the appellant never allowed her brother to come home. It was only when the brother came home from Mumbai, that he was told about the occurrence and thereafter at his instance the FIR was lodged.

14. With respect to her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she disclosed before the Trial Court that such statement was made by her, her mother and brother under duress and threat by the appellant.

15. Similar accusations have been made by the brother and the mother of the victim at the trial, who have been examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3 respectively. The brother of the victim, however, was very candid in stating before the Trial Court, in his cross-examination, that he had only orally informed the po