The court affirmed that a prima facie case is necessary for proceeding with trial, and delay in filing a complaint is not automatically grounds for discharge.

CAV ORDER

Challenging order dated 05.09.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I, Davanagere, in Spl.C.no.714/2023, rejecting application for discharge, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Basavaraj R., learned counsel for petitioner (accused no.2 and referred to as ‘petitioner’) submitted, case of prosecution was based on a complaint dated 11.08.2023 filed by respondent no.2 (‘complainant’) stating that one Vasudev Hiremath (accused no.1 and ‘VH’, for short) sexually assaulted her minor daughter on 13.06.2020, 20.06.2022 etc. and again on 11.08.2023 after kidnapping her from Harihar KSRTC Bus Stand in his Scorpio Car with petitioner accompanying him. Complaint was registered as Crime no.146/2023 by Harihara City Police on 11.08.2023 for offences punishable under Sections 363 , 376 (2) (N) and 506 of Indian Penal Code , 1860 (‘ IPC ’, for short) read with Sections 4 and 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012, (‘POCSO’, for short).

3. It was submitted, without proper investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 03.10.2023, wherein offences alleged against petitioner were under Sections 363 , 506 and 114 of IPC read with Section 17 of POCSO. It was submitted, in complaint only overt-act against petitioner was about driving Scorpio Car when VH kidnapped victim on 11.08.2023. It was submitted, prosecution case was riddled with material contradictions. Besides, there was unexplained delay of 3½ years in filing complaint, which was fatal. In addition, victim’s sister had filed separate complaint before Gangavati Police Station on 14.01.2024 on similar allegation of sexual assault committed on 01.10.2021 in Car, wherein petitioner was named as occupant. Likewise, another complaint was filed by complainant before Mundargi Police Station on 03.01.2023 alleging that she was threatened. It was submitted, filing of complaints at three different Police Stations at three different places after three years was only to harass petitioner by false implication.

4. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Ali v. State of U.P. , reported in(2015) 7 SCC 272 had held, when victim had informed her mother about incident and complaint was filed belatedly, conviction could not sustain.

5. It was submitted, after marriage of victim fixed with VH there was straining of relationship between their families, leading to filing of false complaint and petitioner being victimised. It was submitted, in complaint, complainant stated that on 13.06.2020, victim disclosed about VH taking her to Gadag, committing rape on her in lodge before dropping her home. Thus complainant had knowledge of incident of 13.06.2020 on same day. She however stated that in year 2021, without disclosing reason when victim consumed sleeping tablets in her grandmother’s house, VH along with family members forcibly fixed marriage of VH with victim and alleged that thereafter until 20.06.2022, VH indulged in forcible sexual intercourse with victim repeatedly under threat of life. It was claimed that they later sold their house and shifted to Harihar, where incident of 11.08.2023 occurred. This would reveal that complaint filed on 11.08.2023 was more than three years three months later. Complaint also disclosed, straining of relationship between family of victim and VH not onl