Delay in lodging a sexual offence complaint is not detrimental if sufficiently explained; the victim's credible testimony is pivotal in affirming conviction.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2021 dated 27.12.2021, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Family Court, Full Additional Charge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 5(n), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act').

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the third husband of the minor victim's mother. The minor victim girl was aged about 14 years and was born to the second husband of her mother on 02.06.2007. The mother of the victim girl is a house maid and the accused used to go to sea for fishing.

3.While being so, on 07.08.2020 when the victim girl was alone in her house, the accused, who had gone for fishing, returned early in the afternoon at 01.00 p.m. The victim’s mother had also gone for her housemaid work on the date of occurrence. The accused pushed the victim girl and removed her dress and committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. Thereafter, the accused threatened her with dire consequences and warned that if she disclosed the incident to anybody, he would do away with her life. Therefore, due to fear, the victim girl did not disclose the occurrence to her mother. Utilising the said circumstances, the accused committed the very same offence repeatedly, due to which the victim girl became pregnant. Only thereafter the mother of the victim girl came to know about the occurrence and lodged the complaint. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.9 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 5(n), 5(j) (ii) r/w 6(1) of the POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court.

4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.

5.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 5(n), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6(1) of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the accused and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was an unexplained delay of eight months in lodging the complaint. Only after noticing the pregnancy, the complaint was lodged on 18.03.2021. Thereafter, on 03.05.2021, the victim girl delivered a female child. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is false and foisted as against the appellant, who is the third husband of the victim's mother.

7.In fact, the victim girl was not subjected for medical examination, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The entire evidence of P.W.1 with respect to the factual facet of the offence is entirely untrustworthy, dubious and shady. The victim girl was examined as P.W.2 and she did not even disclose the very serious offence allegedly committed by the appellant to her mother. It was found only during her pregnancy and thereafter, the complaint was lodged.

8.Though the DNA test proved that the appellant is the biological father of the child born to the victim girl, it can be perceived that two views are possible with regard to the testimony of the ocular witnesses and the D