* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : 7th JULY, 2015 DECIDED ON : 29th JULY, 2015 + CRL.A. 361/2013 ANIL KUMAR YADAV ..... Appellant Through : Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Advocate with Ms.S.Parashar & Mr.Pushpender Singh Charak, Advocates.

VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Navin K.Jha, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.

1. The appellant – Anil Kumar Yadav challenges the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 15.10.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 20/2011 arising out of FIR No. 225/10 PS Ranhola by which he was convicted under Section 376 IPC and by an ‘

order dated 17.10.2012 sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine

1,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that on 07.10.2010 at noon time at house No.B-224, Pardhan Chock, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, the appellant – Anil Kumar Yadav committed rape upon prosecutrix ‘X’ (assumed name) aged around 12 years. FIR was lodged on 26.10.2010 after recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-1/A). In her complaint implicating the appellant for sexual assault, ‘X’ gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances, she was criminally intimidated and defiled. ‘X’ was medically examined; she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested and taken for medical examination. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge- sheet was laid before the Court; the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses to prove its case and to bring home appellant’s guilt. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant’s conviction is primarily based upon the sole uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix ‘X’.

4. The occurrence took place on 07.10.2010, when ‘X’ while playing with her brother in the street was allegedly dragged by the accused inside her house and was ravished. In her complaint (Ex.PW- 1/A), she disclosed that due to fear she did not narrate the incident to her mother. She remained mum for about 18 days and purportedly informed her mother on 25.10.2010. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.PW-1/B), she did not disclose the date of occurrence. She informed that the accused had threatened to cut her into pieces if she disclosed the incident to anyone. In her Court statement, she deviated from her earlier version and came up with the plea that on the day of incident itself, she had apprised her mother about the sexual assault at her place of work. She further elaborated that the accused had given beatings to her mother and threatened them not to disclose anything to anyone when her mother came to the house. The prosecution has failed to reconcile the two contradictory versions. The fact remains that FIR was lodged after a considerable delay of 18 days only on 26.10.2010. The inordinate delay has remained unexplained. The Court is conscious that delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding the prosecution case and doubting its authenticity. However, it puts the Court on guard to search for and consider if any explanation has been offered and if offered, whether or not it is satisfactory. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution case. In the instant case, the prosecutrix ‘X’ continued to live with the appellant in the same very premises after the occurrence. There is nothing to show i