Delay in lodging an FIR undermines the prosecution's credibility, potentially leading to the collapse of the case if deemed fabricated.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the judgment dated 16.03.2023 in Spl.SC.No.46 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act, 2012, Puducherry, by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 294 (b), 324 and 354 of the IPC and sentenced as follows:

2.(i) The case of the prosecution is that on 21.02.2021 at about 15.30 hours, on account of prior enmity, the appellant abused the victim minor girl, aged about 16 years and her mother in filthy language; that the appellant had caused simple hurt to the victim by biting the left hand of the victim girl; that he pulled the shawl of the victim girl to outrage her modesty and thereafter exposed his private part by opening his trouser zip; and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

(ii) On the complaint [Ex.P1] made by the victim [PW1], an FIR was registered on 12.03.2021 by PW11, the Sub-Inspector of Police for the offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 294 (b), 324 and 354 of the IPC . PW11 conducted the investigation, made arrangements to record the Section 164 (5) Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, obtained the Accident Register [Ex.P6] of the victim, examined the other witnesses and filed the final report against the accused for the aforesaid offences, before the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act, 2012, Puducherry.

(iii) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with and the case was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.46 of 2021 by the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act, 2012, Puducherry. The trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 294 (b), 324 and 354 of the IPC . During the trial, when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(iv) Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked 12 exhibits as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12, besides one material object, i.e., M.O.1 [DVD]. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side. (v) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of all the charges levelled against him and convicted and sentenced him as stated in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused had preferred the instant appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the alleged occurrence took place on 21.02.2021 and the complaint was lodged on 12.03.2021; that even on 21.02.2021 when PW1 and the victim went to the police station, they did not complain of any of the alleged acts of the appellant, relating to biting of the hand or exposing his private part; that PW3, who is the brother of the victim, would state that there was a panchayat held between the appellant and the victim’s mother [PW2] relating to a money dispute; that PW1 herself had admitted that there was a money transaction between the appellant and the victim’s mother [PW2]; that the evidence of the doctor [PW6] would show that there is nothing to suggest that the vic