The court emphasized that delays in lodging complaints, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and lack of corroborative medical evidence can lead to the acquittal of an accused under sexual offense charges.

JUDGMENT :

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Radheshyam Sharma, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned APP for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 by judgment dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Court (POCSO -II)-cum-7th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in POCSO Case No. 38 of 2020 arising out of Sabour (Goradih) P.S. Case No. 80/2020. By order dated 25.03.2022, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for twenty years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the aforesaid offence.

3. The case arises out of a complaint lodged by the victim, who has been examined as PW4 at the trial.

4. A Complaint Case No. 16/2020 was lodged by the victim (PW4) alleging that while she had come out of her house to ease herself, the appellant gagged her and on point of pistol, committed rape on her. She ran away from that place with great difÏculty and informed about the occurrence to her family members as also to her neighbours. When the appellant and his family members were accosted, they misbehaved with her family members and the villagers who had wanted to intercede with the appellant. A vague statement appears to have been made in the complaint that the family of the appellant had told the family of the victim that if any wrong act had been committed by one Jitendra, there would be no difÏculty in getting the victim married to Jitendra which shall be accepted by the family of the appellant. Since by that time, it had become quite late in the night, therefore, no complaint could made on that day i.e. on 29.01.2020. A panchayati also was convened but the appellant and others were not ready to abide by the decision of the Panchayat. Ultimately, the victim visited the police station with her family members on 30.01.2020 but the case was not registered and the victim was asked to have another panchayati organized. Earlier also, the appellant had committed the same kind of act but the villagers left him after chastising him. Since no case was lodged by the local police station, the victim was compelled to lodge the aforenoted complaint on 03.02.2020. The aforenoted complaint was sent to the concerned police station whereafter a case vide Sabour (Goradih) P.S. Case No. 80/2020 was registered on 15.03.2020 under Sections 322 , 504, 506, 376 and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

5. It appears that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant who faced trial.

6. At the trial, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and two on behalf of the defense.

7. On a conspectus of entire evidence on record, the Trial Court thought it fit to convict and sentence the appellant as aforesaid.

8. While assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Mr. Sharma, the learned Advocate for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the various inconsistencies in prosecution case, making the same absolutely unacceptable as reliable evidence against the appellant. He firstly pointed out that the complaint on the basis of which, the F.I.R. was lodged, was filed after 4 to 5 days of the occurrence. The victim claims to have gone to the police station but the case was not registered. This was the opportune time for the victim or h