SANDEEP MEHTA, J. - (1.) The instant appeal under Section 378(3) and (1) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan for assailing the judgment dated 8.7.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Pratapgarh in Special Sessions Case No. 6/1993, whereby the respondent accused Govind Lal was acquitted of the charge under Sections 376, 363, 366 and 342 I.P.C. while being convicted for the offences under Section 3(1)(ix) of the SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) and Section 354 I.P.C. and sentenced as under :-- Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act Rigorous imprisonment of 9 months and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of one month. 354 I.P.C. Simple imprisonment of 6 months and a fine of Rs. 100/-. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) No one has appeared to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent- accused. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and have meticulously gone through the impugned judgment and the record.
(3.) So far as the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. is concerned, the best evidence available to the prosecution is that of the victim Mst. 'K' (PW-2). She gave out her age to be 10 to 12 years and stated that the accused took her to Bhilwara on the pretext that he would show her various places as well as a movie. Her parents had gone to the well. She went away with the accused, who took her to the house of Shankar and kept her inside the house. There the accused misbehaved with her. He threatened that she would be sold off. The accused then forced himself on to her and subjected her to rape. She was kept at the house of Shanker for 4 to 5 days. Balu came there and saved her from the clutches of the accused. She was brought back to her village. The FIR of the alleged incident was lodged by Roopa, the mother of the victim, through a complaint filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Begun as late as on 2.6.1992. The date of the incident stated in the complaint is 20 days earlier. In this complaint, no allegation whatsoever has been levelled that the accused subjected the victim to sexual assault. During the course of investigation, the victim Mst. 'K' deposed before the Investigating Officer that the accused offered her that he could take her to Bhilwara for watching cinema. She agreed to this suggestion. The accused went ahead. Her parents were not present in the house, thus, she followed him. Both of them met at the bus stand and boarded a bus going towards Bhilwara. They watched the movie and then went to the house of Shankar, brother of the accused. They slept in one room, whereas, Shankar and his wife slept in another. Govind misbehaved with her, to which she objected. Govind threatened her of dire consequences, on which, she succumbed to his pressure and coercion. However, the girl admitted that she did not tell these facts to anyone after she was brought back to his father's house. The victim was confronted with these material contradictions appearing in her police statement vis-a-vis her sworn testimony but she could not explain the same. In this view of the matter, I am of the firm opinion that even if the highest case as set up in the victim's statement is accepted, the allegation that she was subjected to rape by the accused is per se unreliable. It seems that the only allurement, which the accused offered to her, was of going to watch a movie, which both of them did. The victim herself followed the accused and went to Bhilwara with him in a public transport. No objection was made by her at any point of time. The FIR was lodged after gross and undue delay of 20 days, for which no explanation is forthcoming. In view of the above factual scenario, I am of the firm opinion that the omission in the belated FIR that the accused subjected the victim to sexual assault is far too significant to be overlooked and hence, the acquittal of the accused of the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. as recorded by the Trial Court is absolutely unassailable.;