Inordinate delay in lodging FIR undermines prosecution credibility, necessitating corroborative evidence for conviction under S.354, IPC.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 06.10.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Special Case No. 32/2011.

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the course of trial are as under:
2.1 That, on 26.01.2010 and thereafter on 08.03.2010, the appellant while holding the post of Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch Bilaspur, attempted to outrage the modesty of complainant Shilpa Bhagat(PW - l) knowing well that she belongs to Schedule Tribe community. On written complaint (Ex. P / 1) made by the complainant to the Police Station Adim Jati Kalyan, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (for short, AJK) on 03.06.2010 offences under S.354 Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and S.3(1) (xi)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act, 1989) were registered against the appellant on 17-10-2010.
2.2 During the course of investigation, the statement of witnesses were recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. and after completing investigation, charge sheet was laid before the Court of Judicial Magistrate.
2.3 The Judicial Magistrate, having found that the case was exclusively triable by the Special Court, committed the same to the Court of Special Judge under S.193, Cr.P.C.
2.4 Learned Special Judge, by its order dated 04.02.2012 framed the charges under S.3(1) (xi) of the Act, 1989 as well as under S.354, IPC, to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
2.5 In order to bring home the charged offences, the Prosecution has examined following witnesses i. (PW - 1) Ku. Shilpa Bhagat, complainant. ii. (PW - 2) Azad Verma, co - worker of the complainant. iii. (PW - 3)Birachi Dehari, investigating officer. Apart from these, the prosecution brought nine documents and exhibited them(Exhibit P / 1 to Exhibit P / 9) on record.
2.6 The defence of the appellant is that of denial by submitting that he was strict disciplinarian and that he was not liked by the some sections of the employees and in order to take revenge, he has been falsely implicated. Defence examined none, but brought documents (Exhibit D / 2 to Exhibit D / 5) on record at his instance.
2.7 Learned Special Judge, in its judgment impugned considered the evidence pros and cons and acquitted the appellant from the charges under S.3(1)(xi) of the Act, 1989, however, convicted him for the offence punishable under S.354, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-with default stipulation.
2.8 Against this judgment of conviction, instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant / accused.

3. Shri R. S. Marhas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit as under:
3.1 That, First Information Report (FIR) made by the complainant Shilpa Bhagat on 03.06.2010 suffers from unexplained delay of 3 to 5 months.
3.2 That, the testimony of complainant Shilpa Bhagat (PW - 1) is not trustworthy in absence of corroboration by independent public witness.
3.3 That, non - examination of charge - sheet listed witness Anirudh Kori would lead to, adverse inference against the prosecution.
3.4 That, finding of learned Special Judge holding that complainant made a complaint against the appellant to R.B.O. is contrary to the complaint made by complainant Shilpa Bhagat as the complaint (Ex. P / 1) shows that no such complaint was made with regard to the alleged incident to R.B.O., and therefore, order of conviction and sentence as well deserves to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Shri Sameer Behar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / State would s