IMPORTANT POINT
The credibility of the victim's testimony and the reasonableness of the delay in lodging the complaint are crucial factors in determining the outcome of the case.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appellant assails a judgment of conviction of December 21, 2018 that found him guilty under Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the resultant punishment. The appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the appellant has to undergo an additional year of imprisonment.

2. In seeking to question the propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction, the appellant submits that the only basis for the conviction is the statement of the alleged victim as there was no witness and the only attempt at corroboration of the incident is through the self-serving statements of the close relatives of the alleged victim. The appellant seeks to point out that in course of his response to the questions put to him by the trial court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant had made out a case that there was considerable enmity between the father of the alleged victim and the appellant since the appellant had tried to dissuade the father of the alleged victim from continuing an extra-marital affair with an aunt of the appellant.

3. The appellant points out that the first information report came to be lodged more than two weeks after the incident and there was no explanation furnished in the FIR to explain the delay. The appellant says that the delay was sought to be covered up in a tutored manner in course of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and it is also apparent that one of the sisters of the alleged victim merely regurgitated what had been testified by another sister, without having any personal knowledge of the matter referred to in her testimony.

4. The appellant asserts that there are serious discrepancies as to the description of the incident and the course of action taken by the alleged victim and her elder sisters at the relevant time. The appellant suggests that it is inconceivable that a 14-year-old would be held by her hand and dragged out of her house after pushing a younger sister out of the way and neither the victim nor the younger sister would raise any hue or cry or make any attempt to scream. The appellant reads the testimonies of the two elder sisters of the victim and says that they are at variance with the victim's own version as would appear from the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code and her oral evidence at the trial.

5. According to the appellant, the victim's version is that the appellant had visited the house where the victim, two of her elder sisters and her younger sister were staying and had spent some time talking to the eldest sister. The victim recollected that she was in the verandah outside with her younger sister when the appellant was leaving the house, whereupon the appellant noticed the victim and her younger sister, caught the victim by her hand and dragged her away after pushing back the younger sister. According to the second older sister of the victim, the victim and the youngest sister had gone out of the house to answer nature's call but the victim did not return along with the younger sister which prompted the two elder sisters to go out in search of the victim and, in course of such search, they called out the name of the victim; but could not find her and the victim returned an hour or so later.

6. What the appellant suggests is that both the versions cannot be correct and cannot co-exist. The appellant maintains that if it was the victim's assertion that she was dragged to a nearby garden, the victim would have been in a position to hear her name being called out aloud by her two elder sisters and nothing in the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code or in her testimony in the Court indicates that the victim was gagged or could not raise an alarm or shout. The appellant submits that it is unusual that a 14-year-old girl would go missing in the