Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. Joseph Lalchhanhima Renthlei, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

2. This appeal is an appeal from jail submitted by the appellant Sh. Nor Bahadur Pradhan against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Aizawl in Criminal Trial No. 1681/2011, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(f)/377 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for a term of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), ID RI for three months under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. The appellant had been sentenced to undergo R.I for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4000/- (Rupees four thousand), i.d R.I for one month under Section 377 IPC. The sentences are to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution story in brief is as follows:-

The prosecution story of the case in brief is that on 27.7.2011 one Lalthanpari D/o Ram Babu(L) of Lungsir, Mamit lodged a written FIR at Mamit Police Station to the effect that since the year 2009, her husband Pradhan used to have sexual as well as carnal intercourse with her daughter "Z", 9 years. It was also mentioned that her daughter was threatened of being killed if she makes any disclosure and that after killing her he will go back to his country. Accordingly, Mami P.S. Case No. 22/2011 dated 27.7.2011 u/s 376(2)(f)/377/506 IPC was registered. SI/Deepak Pathak was endorsed to take up investigation. Upon completion of investigation, having found prima facie case u/s 376(2)(f)/377/506 IPC against Nor Bahadur Pradhan, the investigating Officer laid charge sheet against him. The case was then committed for trial.

4. The Amicus Curiae submits that as per the evidence of the victim girl, the first incident of rape occurred when the victim girl was seven years old. However, the FIR had been filed on 27.07.2011, when the victim girl was nine years old.

5. The petitioners’ counsel submits that due to the delay in filing the FIR after two years, the entire proceedings in the Trial Court has been vitiated as no satisfactory explanation has been given by the complainant with regard to the late filing of the FIR. In support of his argument the learned Amicus Curiae has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand (Criminal Trial No. 1149/2008) and the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sunder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (CR.R. No. 607/2013). The Amicus Curiae submits that the inordinate delay of two years in filing the FIR makes the prosecution case improbable and the same should not have been accepted by the Trial Court, as it is fatal to the prosecution case.

6. The Amicus Curiae also submits that as per the evidence of the complainant (PW1), the complainant was told by the victim that she had been raped by the appellant. The complainant confronted her husband and she reported the matter to the Village Council, who however did not believe her. Thereafter, the complainant and the appellant lived separately for about a year and started living together again later as the appellant had asked for forgiveness. The complaint has also stated that she had seen the appellant having anal sex with the victim. The complainant scolded her husband and also assaulted the victim as to why she did not shout. The complainant stated that the victim told the complainant that the accused threatened the victim with fear of death if she reported the matter to anybody. The Amicus Curiae submits that the entire sequence of events is flawed and does not indicate that any anal sex occurred as the victim girl has not corroborated the same.

7. The Amicus Curiae submits that though the complainant had stated in her evidence that she had seen the appellant having anal sex with the victim, the evidence of the victim girl does not indicate that the appellant had anal sex with the victim girl. In sup