Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.

By medium of this criminal appeal, judgment dated 24.03.2017 and the order dated 05.04.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court (Additional Judge, District Council Court, Shillong) are assailed.

2. Case No. 45(7)2010 Rynjah PS on completion of the investigation culminated in filing the final report under section 173 CrPC, 1973 (charge sheet) to the effect that during investigation, the accused is established to have committed the offences under Sections 376 (2) (f) and 506 IPC. After hearing the Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the defence, the learned Trial Court (Additional Judge, District Council Court, Shillong) on 09.10.2013 framed the charge against the accused for commission of offences under Sections 376 (2) (f) and 506 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in support of its case produced 12 listed witnesses.

3. On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused has been examined in terms of section 313 CrPC, 1973 on 06.10.2016, as against each incriminating circumstance put to him, he has responded by stating "not true" and finally has stated "have nothing to say". The accused had been asked to enter upon the defence and in defence he had produced and examined 3 witnesses.

4. The learned Trial Court vide judgment impugned dated 24.03.2017 has convicted the accused under Sections 376 (2) (f) and 506 IPC. After hearing regarding the quantum of sentence, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.04.2017 sentenced the convict to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The amount of fine if recovered to be paid to the victim. In addition thereto, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, East Khasi Hills to consider the award of compensation to the victim under section 357A CrPC, 1973 if permissible. The convict has also been sentenced to one year simple imprisonment under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences stand directed to run concurrently. Period undergone to be set-off in terms of section 428 CrPC, 1973.

5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentences awarded, instant criminal appeal has been preferred.

6. It is contended that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of seven long years which is fatal to the prosecution case, as such the case should have been rejected on this ground alone. Supporting his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments reported in (2007) 12 SCC 641 and (2008) 15 SCC 582.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the statement of the prosecutrix is nothing but a concocted story full with exaggeration and coloured version. Her statement is improbable, self contradictory and is not of high quality, as such unreliable. In support of his submission has placed reliance on the following judgments:

(i) (2008) 15 SCC 133

(ii) (2009) 15 SCC 566

(iii) (2010) 12 SCC 115

(iv) (2012) 8 SCC 21 and

(v) (2012) 7 SCC 171

8. In opposition, learned Addl.PP submits that in the peculiar facts of the case, delay is not fatal. Supporting his submission has placed reliance on the judgments reported in (2009) 6 SCC 635, (2004) 7 SCC 775 and (2004) 8 SCC 153. Further, added that the prosecution case is fully proved. Prosecutrix has given the truthful statement which is supported by other witnesses.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also sifted the entire records. Sordid story is unfolded. Human being on losing rationality falls prey to devil with brutal consequences. Brutality demolishes all humanistic boundaries. In the case in hand sufferer is a girl of approximately 7 years of age.

Background of the case:

10. From perusal of the records, it emerged that the prosecutrix in the year 2003 was about 7 years of age, she along with her two sisters were studying in Auxillium School, Shillong, so were staying in a house at Nongthymmai, Jylli Shop, Shillon