The court affirmed that delay in reporting sexual offences must be understood in the context of societal pressures, emphasizing the credibility of the victim's testimony and corroborating medical evidence.

1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 15.09.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, (Under POCSO Act), Bhandara in Special (Child) Criminal Case No. 24/2016 and therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2.The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 706/2018 is accused no.1 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 139/2019 is accused no.2. They have been held guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376-D and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ; under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act” for short) and under Sections 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act” for short). They are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs.50,000/-; rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- ; and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 376-D r/w Sec.34 , 506 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC and under Sec. 3(1)(xii) of the Atrocities Act, respectively.

3.BACKGROUND FACTS :- The informant (PW4) is the mother of the victim (PW1). According to the prosecution, the incident of gang rape on the victim occurred on 22.04.2016. The victim, at the time of the incident, was 14 years old. The accused and the victim are resident of the same village. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.04.2016 between 10.00 and 11.00 am, one boy namely Aryan Ilpate, aged about 8 years, went to the house of the victim and told her that her friend Guddi had called her. The victim accompanied Aryan to the house of Guddi. When the victim reached near the house of accused no.2 Pravin, who was accompanied by Pappu @ Pramod, a juvenile in conflict with law and accused no.1 Vasanta, the accused persons caught hold her, gagged her mouth and took her in the house of accused no.2 Pravin. Accused no.2 bolted the door of the house from inside. The victim was taken to the inside room. Accused removed the clothes of the victim. Accused no.1 also removed all his clothes. Accused no.2 and juvenile in conflict with law caught hold the hands of the victim to facilitate sexual intercourse on the victim by accused no.1. Accused no.1 committed sexual intercourse with the victim.

4.When the victim was taken inside the house of accused no.2, boy Aryan went to the house of the victim and informed her mother (PW4) about the incident. The accused threatened to kill the victim, if she disclosed commission of rape on her to anyone. After getting information through Aryan, the informant (PW4) came to the house of accused no.2 Pravin. She found that the door was closed from inside. She banged on the door and raised shouts. Accused no.1, after hearing the shouts of the mother of the victim, tied her month with the help of handkerchief and carried her to ‘dhaba’ (first floor of the house made up of bamboos). After repeated knocks on the door, accused no.2 Pravin opened the door and reported that it is not the house of prostitute. Initially she was not allowed to enter the house. However, the mother of the victim gained entry into the house. There she saw a pair of chappals of the victim. She questioned accused Pravin about the pair of chappals, to which he replied that the chappals belonged to his mother. In fact, the chappals belonged to the victim. PW4 took the pair of chappals and went to her house. She made a phone call to her husband and called him. She narrated the incident to her husband. The husband of the informant went to the house of Pravin. It is stated that after hearing conversation between the informant and accused Pravin, the victim put on her clothes and went to her house. The accused persons threatened the victim to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. It is the case of the prosecution that despite returning home, she did not