JUDGMENT :

AJAI TYAGI, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.5.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Fatehpur, in Special Trial No. 37 of 2013 (State of UP vs. Gore @ Sushil) arising out of Case Crime No. 347 of 2013 under Sections 376, 354, 452, 506 IPC and Section 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as ‘the POCSO Act, 2012’) P.S. Bindaki, District-Fatehpur, whereas the accused-appellant - Gore @ Sushil was awarded 3 years R.I. under Section 354 IPC, 5 years R.I. under Section 452 IPC, 3 years RI under Section 506 (2) IPC and 10 years RI under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, along with fine.

2. The brief facts of this appeal are that on 23.10.2013, the father of victim Ram Sanehi lodged an FIR at Police Station- Bindaki with averments that he resides in Delhi and does private service and he rarely comes at his native house at Fatehpur. At his residence, his wife resides with four daughters, one son and informant's aged mother. Gore son of late Pramod Kumar, who is of the same village often comes to the house of informant with intention he pressurize to make marital relationship with his elder daughter Kanchan, but when she refused to marry with him, he used to take his younger daughter, the victim for getting treatment at Kanpur as the victim was having white-spot on her leg. During the course of taking her to Kanpur for treatment, Gore committed rape with the victim and threatened her not to tell anybody, therefore, victim remained silent and Gore committed rape many times. Informant's elder daughter Kanchan alone ran away Mumbai and later on recovered from there.

3. Accused-appellant Gore @ Sushil was charged by the learned trial court under Sections 376, 452, 354, 506 (2) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. On finding guilty, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 452, 354, 506 (2) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Aggrieved with the judgment of learned trial court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in this case, accused has been falsely implicated. In medical examination, there is no corroboration of rape with the victim. It is argued that only motive behind the false implication of the appellant was that victim's parents wanted to marry their elder daughter Kanchan with appellant, but Kanchan fled away to Mumbai and when she was recovered, appellant refused to marry her. Due to this refusal, the accused was falsely implicated in this case.

6. Per contra, learned AGA argued that prosecution witnesses has supported the prosecution case. Victim was just 13 years of age, she has supported her version in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and appellant has rightly been convicted by the learned trial court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant advanced arguments at length. First of all, it is argued that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR in this case. No date, time and place of occurrence is given in first information report by the informant. Victim's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer after one month of filing FIR. First Information Report was lodged after three months of the alleged occurrence and no explanation is given by the prosecution for causing so mach delay in filing the FIR.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that this delay in filing the FIR was fatal for prosecution case because there was enough time of three months with the informant and his family members to falsely implicate the accused-appellant and for that reason, after-thought story was made by them. In this regard, on perusal of the record, it is seen that as per victim's version, she was threatened by the appellant not to tell the incident to anybody otherwise she will be killed and her elder sister