The prosecution must establish the accused's guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, and delay in lodging the FIR can be a relevant factor in assessing the credibility of the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the judgment dated 29.03.2018, passed by learned Special Judge (District and Sessions Judge), Hamirpur, H.P., whereby accused has been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 363, 328, 376(2)(i), 323 & 506 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act'). For the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, accused has to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Having been sentenced under Section 6 of POCSO Act, appellant was not imposed any sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 328 and 376(2)(i) IPC. Sentences of less than 10 years, in respect of other offences, were to run concurrently.

2. (I). Appellant-accused was charged with offences:-

(a). Punishable under Section 341 IPC having been committed by him on 26.02.2014 and 28.10.2015;

(b). Punishable under Section 363 IPC having been committed on 26.02.2014 and 28.10.2015;

(c). Punishable under Section 328 IPC having been committed on 26.02.2014;

(d). Under Section 6 of POCSO Act or in the alternative under Sections 376 (2)(i) IPC having been committed by him on 26.02.2014 and 28.10.2015;

(e). Under Section 323 IPC having been committed on 11.03.2016; and

(f). Under Section 506(ii) IPC having been committed on 26.02.2014 and 28.10.2015.

2(ii). Thirty one witnesses were examined by the prosecution for establishing its case. Accused also produced his father, wife and Panchayat Secretary in the witness-box.

2(iii). We have heard Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned senior counsel for the appellant/accused, Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and with their able assistance, carefully gone through the record.

3. All the offences are alleged to have been committed on three specific dates, i.e. 26.02.2014, 28.10.2015 and 11.03.2016. Therefore, we propose to discuss hereinafter the alleged events of the case, date-wise.

Events on 26.02.2014:

3(i). Prosecutrix (PW-1), in her examination-in-chief, deposed that while going to school on 26.02.2014, she was forcibly taken by the accused in his car at around 08.00 a.m. from a place called Balle to a hotel at Rewalsar where she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Her deposition about the events of 26.02.2014, may be noticed thus:-

"On 26.2.2014, when I was going to school, the accused met me at place Balle at about 8.00 AM. He came in his car and insisted to accompany him to Rewalsar. I initially objected, but on his repeated insistence I accompanied him. The accused took me to Lotus Hotel at Rewalsar. On reaching hotel, we had lunch together and thereafter the accused took me in a room for resting. The accused offered me cold drink and after drinking the same, I fell unconscious. After 2- 3 hours when regained conscious, I found that my Salwar and underwear were lying on the side of the bed and I was feeling pain in my private part. I also spotted blood coming out of my private part. The accused threatened me not to disclose the incident, otherwise he would upload my photographs and video clips on the Internet. Later, we returned and he dropped me at my house. I did not disclose the incident out of fear and threat."

3(ii). Though the case of prosecution primarily is under POCSO Act, where the prosecutrix (with date of birth: 26.05.1999) was allegedly taken to Rewalsar perforce, yet after going through the statements of witnesses on record, one cannot help but notice that as per prosecutrix, accused in past also used to indulge in minor obscene activities, which were objected by her. Despite being aware of alleged character of accused, she while going to school on 26.02.2014, chose to accompany the accused in his car merely on his 'insistence'; prosecutrix went in accused