JUDGMENT :

Mohan Lal, J.-

Instant Criminal Conviction Appeal is directed by appellant/convict against the judgment and order dated 12.01.2021 rendered by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge Ramban in the case File No. 02/challan bearing case CNR No. JKRB010000382016 titled State vs Liaqat Ali, whereby, appellant/convict has been held guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years for commission of offence punishable u/s 376 RPC and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and further sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) years for commission of offence punishable u/s 506 RPC and in default of payment of fine, appellant/convict has been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for the period of 06 months.

2. Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, appellant/ convict has questioned it’s legality, propriety and correctness and has sought it’s setting aside/quashment on the following grounds:-

(i) that the prosecutrix has filed an application for registration of FIR on 04-12-2011 after the lapse of more than 08 months from the date of incident, there has been delay in registration of FIR which has remained unexplained, the learned trial court has not taken a view on this fact;

(ii) that the prosecutrix has never mentioned in her statement recorded before the trial court that appellant/convict has ever committed rape upon her, she has only stated that the appellant/convict committed “Beparadgi” upon her, which by no stretch of imagination can be construed as rape;

(iii) that the learned trial court has considered the age of prosecutrix as 16 years and a minor, whereas, prosecutrix has stated before the trial court that she is illiterate, however, PW-8 Mohd Mudasir a teacher in Govt. Upper Primary School Digog Ramban has stated before the trial court that the prosecutrix was admitted in the school on 16.04.2001 with her date of birth recorded as 12.12.1995, the statements of PW8 Mohd Mudasir and that of the prosecutrix are totally contradictory to each other regarding date of birth, therefore, the learned trial court has fallen into an error by considering the prosecutrix as minor and has wrongly convicted the appellant/convict by virtue of impugned judgment and order;

(iv) that the material witnesses of the prosecution viz; I.O and doctor have not been examined by the prosecution which has cast a serious dent in the credibility and genuineness of the prosecution case;

3. Sh. Arjun Singh Raju learned counsel for the appellant/convict has vehemently argued, and has sought the setting aside/quashment of impugned judgment and the acquittal of appellant/convict on the following counts:-

(i) It is argued, that the FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix on 04-12-2011 on a written application after a delay of more than 08 months from the date of occurrence, prosecution has not tendered any plausible explanation for such delay, the learned trial court has not considered this aspect of delayed FIR which leaves a mark of doubt to treat the testimony of the prosecutrix as natural and truthful to inspire confidence which gives rise to sense of doubt regarding the genuineness and credibility of the prosecution case.

(ii) It is argued, that the prosecutrix has never mentioned in her statement recorded before the trial court that appellant/convict has ever committed rape upon her, she has only stated that the appellant/convict committed “Beparadgi” upon her, which by no stretch of imagination can be construed as rape;

(iii) It is moreso argued, that the learned trial court has considered the age of prosecutrix as 16 years and a minor, whereas, prosecutrix has stated before the trial court that she is illiterate, however, PW-8 Mohd Mudasir a teacher in Govt. Upper Primary School Digog Ramban has stated before the trial court that the prosecutrix was admitted in the sc