The delay in lodging a complaint does not invalidate allegations when there is corroborative evidence and medical support. The nature of the relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix must be considered in evaluating the prosecutrix's actions.

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

Crl.M.A.249/2017 (Delay of 8 days in filing the revision petition)

1. Subject petition has been filed with a delay of 8 days. It is contended that the matter had to be considered for elucidating opinion on filing of the appeal by the Addl. Public Prosecutor, Chief Prosecutor, Director of Prosecution (DOP), Principal Secretary (Law and Justice) and upto the Law Minister on account of which delay of 8 days occurred in filing the present revision petition.

2. On perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the petitioner has sufficiently explained the delay in filing the petition.

3. For the aforesaid reason, the delay of 8 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

4. Application is allowed.

CRL.REV.P. 17/2017

1. State impugns order dated 15.09.2016 whereby the Trial Court has discharged the respondent from the offences under Sections 354, 376(2) (f) of the IPC.

2. The prosecutrix is the daughter of the accused. As per the FIR the accused is blind and is living separately from his wife. The prosecutrix in her statement submits that she has no memory as to when the sexual assaults started. She was born on 27.03.1998 and her father was the caretaker of her and her brother. There are several instances narrated by her starting from the period 2004-2005 till 2011 when he is alleged to have sexually assaulted her.

3. The Trial Court by the impugned order has discharged the accused primarily inter-alia holding as under:-

"It is natural position that a blind person cannot give bath to any person and even if he gives bath, he cannot put his penis between the thighs of any person. Even if, he had done this act, there was various opportunities to prosecutrix to raise alarm or discuss the fact to any close relative or friend or mother. Even in the present case, divorced mother of prosecutrix was also alive, she could have discussed with her but same was not done. Moreover, in the cities like Delhi there is facility of 100 number for calling police. She could have made the phone to police, it appears from her contents of complaint that prosecutrix is well educated and her father is blind. There was lot of opportunities for, prosecutrix to make the complaint against her father at that time.

Complaint further reveals that on 22.06.2016, father of prosecutrix asked her to go somewhere with him and she refused and she went to her mother's home to stay with her and he called her mother and said whatever the matter between her mother and him. They sort it out.

From this fact and complaint dated 26.06.2016, it appears that it was the matter of fighting between prosecutrix and her father. On that pretext, present matter was lodged for offence u/s 376 IPC.

From the MLC it is revealed that last sexual assault was happened when prosecutrix was aged of 13 to 14 years and MLC also does not suggest any fresh injury on person of prosecutrix at the time of medical examination, hence, submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that matter is covered under POCSO is not tenable. Further, submissions of IO has also not supported the version of Ld. Addl. PP for the State. Hence, offence under POCSO Act is not made out against the accused.

***** ***** *****

At this stage, when it has come on record that police on 100 number available in Delhi frequently and way of writing of complaint shows that complainant is very much intelligent and knowing consequences and could have disclosed about the incident, if anything, had happened with her to her mother or to any close relative but same was not done. All the allegations are general in nature without mentioning specific dates. Hence, in these circumstances, prima facie there is no sufficient material on record to proceed further with this case. Accordingly, accused Tulsi Das Mahto is discharged from the offences punishable under section 354/376(2)(f) IPC."

4. The Trial Court inter-alia has held that the allegations were made against a blind person and it was not possible for him to commit the acts as