The reliability of the victim's statement and the support from other evidence, including medical examination and statements from witnesses, are crucial in cases of sexual assault.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.06.2015 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2014, State vs. Arjun Dev, by the court of Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(f), 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“the Act”) and has been sentenced as hereunder:

(i) Under Section 376(2)(f) IPC - rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, imprisonment for a further period of six months.

(ii) Under Section 5/6 of the Act - rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, imprisonment for a further period of six months.

(iii) Under Section 506 IPC - rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days.

2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows. The father of the victim died when she was only one and a half years old. Her mother remarried with the appellant. When the victim was 15 years of age, one day, she revealed it to her mother that the appellant, who happens to be her step-father, had been raping her for one and a half years since then. The mother of the victim asked as to why did she not reveal it earlier? To it, the victim replied that since the appellant had threatened her to life, she maintained silence. The mother of the victim questioned her husband. He tendered apologies with the assurance that he would not commit the said act again. The mother of the victim then consulted her neighbour Pushpa Devi. She suggested to report the matter to Police. The mother of the victim approached Mahila Samakhya, who wrote a report on behalf of the mother of the victim. It is this report, which is FIR Ex.A2. The report was lodged on 28.06.2014, under Sections 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of the Act. The matter was investigated. On the same date i.e. on 28.06.2004, the victim was medically examined by PW-4 Dr. Sangeeta Negi. She found the hymen torn and according to the Doctor, the victim was habitual of sexual intercourse. The statement of the victim and her mother as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (“the Code”) on 02.07.2014. They reiterated the version of the FIR. The Investigating Officer (“IO”) prepared the site plan Ex.A9. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 5/6 of the Act. On 02.09.2014, charge under Section 376(2)(f) and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the Act was framed, to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code. According to the appellant, the victim is his step daughter. The mother of the victim wanted to get rid of the appellant. She wanted to grab his property, therefore, he has been implicated in a false case. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinbefore. Hence, the appeal.

4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses, namely, PW-1, the victim, PW-2, the mother and the informant, PW-3 Archana Dhulia, PW-4, Dr. Sangeeta Negi, PW-5, Vandana Bhardwaj, teacher of Government Girls Inter College, where the victim was studying at the relevant time, PW-6 Constable Karamvir Singh, PW-7 SI Devendra Singh Aswal, and PW-8 SSI Vijay Singh.

5. Heard learned Amicus Curiae, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

6. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the FIR is much delayed in this case. It is lodged on 28.06.2014 and it records that 15 days prior to it, the victim had revealed the incident to the informant. It is argued that