IMPORTANT POINT
The delay in lodging the FIR in rape cases, particularly involving minors, and the victim's inability to identify the accused during cross-examination were deemed immaterial in light of compelling evidence establishing the offence.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. The instant appeal has been assailed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 10th July, 2018 and 11th July, 2018 whereby convicted and sentenced the appellant by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, 2012 at Barasat, North 24-Parganas, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 03 (12) of 2017 arising out of Computer No. 961 of 2017 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for 1 year for offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. The complainant being the grand-mother of the victim lodged a complaint against the appellant to the effect that her grand-daughter lives with her since her childhood. On 14.10.2017 at about 7 p.m. in the evening, her sister-in-law told her to enquire about why victim girl was weeping. When she asked her the reason for weeping, she disclosed that in the evening of Laxmi Puja i.e. on 05.10.2017 appellant called her and took her to his own house where no one else was present. Appellant took off her pant and laid her on the bed and slowly penetrated his male organ into her female organ. When she tried to shout, appellant pushed her mouth and after spending some time he told the victim to go home. Having heard all these, she went to appellant’s house and asked what he had done with the victim he replied that it was a mistake on his part. He asked for apology and quickly left his house. On her complaint Ashoknagar P.S. Case No. 961/2017 dated 14.10.2017 under Section 376(2)(i)(g)/506 I.P.C. and 4 POCSO Act was registered against the appellant.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Appellant. Accordingly, charge was framed under Section 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In course of trial, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited number of documents as Exhibit Nos.1 to 13 respectively.

5. Defence of the Appellant was that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. No evidence, however, was led on behalf of the defence.

6. After appreciation of the oral evidence and considering the documents exhibited by the prosecution, the Trial Judge, by impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Consequently, the present appeal.

7. At the time of argument, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the prosecution case is full of doubts. Complainant lodged a complaint after delay of 9 days from the date of alleged incident without any explanation. Identification of the appellant by the witnesses’ during trial bears no significance as he is close neighbour and had acquaintance with the complainant. Appellant has been falsely implicated into this case as there was a long dispute over a path way between the appellant and the grand-mother of the victim girl and Salishi was held between the parties on several occasions. Therefore, all the circumstances as projected by the prosecution are false and fabricated. Victim girl herself admitted during cross-examination that the appellant resides opposite to her house so question of identification does not arise at all. P.W. 7 also admitted that there was a long standing dispute between the appellant and grand-mother of the victim over a path way and there was Salishi held over that dispute between them many times in the village. There are various contradictions amongst the prosecution witnesses. So allegation of rape is out and out false and fabricated due to previous dispute. All these circumstances would give sufficient reason to acquit the appellant. Therefore, the appellant may be acquitted.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the prosecution case is based on direct evidence