JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2017 passed by the I Addl. Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Spl.C(PCSOA) No.31/2015 sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment of two years for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f)(i)(m) of IPC and under Section 5(i)(m)(n) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The accused was further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused to under simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months, for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The same has been challenged in this appeal by urging various grounds. 2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under : The accused is the father of C.W.1 and they were living in Coolie Lane of Anegundi Estate, Koove Village from 29.3.2015. On 2.4.2015 at 9 p.m., the accused came to the house by consuming alcohol and threatened C.W.1 and made her to remove her dress and had committed forcible sexual intercourse with C.W.1 knowing fully that she is his daughter. The accused also threatened C.W.1 stating that she should not disclose the said incident to anyone. On 10.4.2015, the accused had assaulted C.W.1 and police and the members of Ujwala Samsthe, Chikkamagaluru went there, pacified C.W.1 and took her to Ujwala Samsthe and enquired about the harassment given by her father. On 17.4.2015, the mother and uncle of C.W.1 came there and when all of them enquired her, C.W.1 disclosed the sexual harassment committed by the accused on her and later they registered a complaint with the jurisdictional police. The A.S.I. of complainant police registered the case against the accused and recorded an F.I.R. The C.P.I. of Mudigere Circle, took up further investigation of the case and received assessment extract of the spot of incident, sent the articles received from Mallegowda Hospital, Chikkamagaluru to RFSL, Mangalore for examination. The Investigating Officer also received the age certificate from Government Primary School, T.G. Koppa, FSL report and spot sketch. The Investigating Officer also received the age certificate from Government Primary School, T.G. Koppa, FSL report and spot sketch. On 15.7.2015 he produced the victim girl before the Judicial Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and after obtaining statement and after completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376(f)(i)(m), 506 of IPC and under Sections 4, 5 (i)(m)(n) punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. Subsequently, in order to substantiate the case against the accused the prosecution examined 16 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 16 and got exhibited 25 documents as Exs.P1 to P25 and one material object as M.O.1 was marked. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the entire incriminating evidence of the prosecution witnesses and not claimed to adduce defence evidence. 4. Subsequently, the Trial Court, on hearing the arguments advanced by the learned P.P. and the counsel for the accused, and evaluating the entire evidence on record passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence convicting the accused as stated supra. It is this judgment of the Trial Court which is called in question in the present appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused and learned HCGP for the State. Perused the records. 6. In the first limb of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is abnormal delay in submitting the FIR to the Magistrate Court which is in the same place. He further contends that the cross examination portion of the evidence is not properly assessed by the Court below while convicting the appellant wherein the accused himself took the victim to the police to lodge the complaint against the boy who raped the victim. Therefore, the court ought to have posed the question to the victim as to why she did not complaint against the accused when she was in the police station along with the appellant, being her father. Therefore, the court ought to have posed the question to the victim as to why she did not complaint against the accused when she was in the police station along with the appellant, being her father. It is further contended that when it was the case of PW.2 the mother of victim, that both victim and appellant went to the school to bring hall ticket why she waited for 15 days from the date of leaving to the school is not appreciated by the court in proper perspective. He further contends that absolutely there are no reasons assigned in FIR for delay in reporting the incident and the same is kept blank without disclosing the reasons, which is fatal to the case. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant sought for setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. 7. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined the victim girl as P.W.1. She was aged about 12 years at the time of incident and she is the daughter of accused. In her evidence, P.W.1 has specifically stated that the accused is her father and he was doing coolie work and her mother was working in Anganwadi as Aaya. She deposed in her evidence that on 29.3.2015 her father took her from her house to Soraba for attending examination to get admission to Morarji School, but the accused instead of taking her to Soraba brought her to Chikkamagaluru. At that time her mother had been to her native place due to ill-health. The accused brought her to Anegundi Estate and stayed in the coolie lane for a period of 7-8 days as he was working as coolie in the estate. After 3-4 days at about 9 p.m. the accused by consuming alcohol asked her to remove her clothes and had forcible sexual intercourse with her for 15 minutes as a result she sustained pain in vagina and blood came out from vagina. Due to pain she started crying and at that time, the accused assaulted her and threatened with her life stating that she should not disclose the incident to anyone. On 10.4.2015 when the accused was assaulting her, C.W.5 Nagaraja came and rescued her and told the accused that if he would assault her, they would inform the same to the police. On 10.4.2015 when the accused was assaulting her, C.W.5 Nagaraja came and rescued her and told the accused that if he would assault her, they would inform the same to the police. On the same day, police came to the estate and enquired her, but due to the threat of her father, she did not disclose the incident. P.W.7 brought the victim to Ujwala Kendra where the officials of Ujwala Kendra enquired her about the incident but she refused to disclose. She stayed there for a period of 2 months. The officials of Ujwala telephoned to her mother and uncle and when they came and enquired about the incident, she disclosed the entire incident and thereafter lodged the report to Balur police station. After registering the complaint, the police sent her to Government hospital, Chikkamagaluru where the doctor examined the victim in the presence of her mother by taking her consent. The police drew the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.3 and took photos as per Ex.P.4 and P.5. Thereafter, she was produced before the Judicial Magistrate and her statement was recorded. 8. P.W.2, the mother of the victim girl deposed in her evidence that on 29.3.2015 her husband took her daughter Ranjitha to Soraba for writing examination to get admission to Morarji school and she had been to her parents house due to ill-health. Her parent’s house was 1 k.m. from her husband’s house. She found that her husband and daughter were not there and searched for them and came back. They did not come back for a period of 15 days. After 20 days the officials from District Child Protection Unit informed that her daughter was in Ujwala Kendra. She and her brother-in-law went there and after enquiring her daughter, they came to know about the incident. She deposed that her husband was doing coolie work and during night hours he was consuming alcohol. After lodging the complaint, police produced the victim before the Mudigere Court. 9. PW.3 is the writer of Anegunde Estate. PW.4 is the Supervisor of Anegundi Estate. Both of them were working at the relevant point of time when the incident took place. They state that on 29.3.2015 accused came to work at Anegundi Estate along with her daughter Ranjitha and staying in the coolie line. They found the accused assaulting the victim girl and the same was reported to the police. Both of them were working at the relevant point of time when the incident took place. They state that on 29.3.2015 accused came to work at Anegundi Estate along with her daughter Ranjitha and staying in the coolie line. They found the accused assaulting the victim girl and the same was reported to the police. On 28.4.2015, the police and officials of Woman and Child Welfare Department came to the coolie line and took the accused and his daughter to police station. 10. P.W.5 is the District Child Protection Officer who states that Balur police telephoned to her on 10.4.2015 and reported the sexual assault by the accused over the victim and requested to give protection to the victim. Accordingly, the victim was taken to Ujwala Kendra. The victim girl after meeting her mother and on her enquiry disclosed that her father committed forcible sexual intercourse against her on 2.4.2015 under intoxication. Accordingly, she recorded the enquiry report as per Ex.P.8 and P.9. 11. P.W.8 is the Doctor who examined the accused. As per the examination, the accused was fit for sexual intercourse. According to him, semen was present on the underwear of the accused which was sent to RFSL through police. No injuries were found on the private parts of the accused. 12. P.W.11 is the doctor who examined the victim. On examination it was found that the victim had not attained puberty, her vagina was congested and abrasions were found. Libia, Majora were not grown completely and her virginity was ruptured. The victim girl was examined after 20 days of commission of offence and the vagina of the victim girl was under growing stage at the time of examination. Doctor deposed that victim was recently subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. 13. PW.9 is the ASI of Mudigere Police Station. He states that on 25.4.2015 at about 3 p.m. P.W.1 along with Jayasheela and Pavithra officials of District Child Protection Unit came to the police station and lodged the report. He registered the case in Cr.No.31/2015 and submitted report to the jurisdictional court through P.C. Megharaju as per Ex.P.1 and P.2 and further investigation was forwarded to CPI Mudigere Circle. 14. P.W.15 Shantarama was working as CPI, Mudigere circle. He states that he took up the further investigation of the case from PSI on 25.4.2015 and received the enquiry report from Ujwala Kendra as per Ex.P.8 and P.9. 14. P.W.15 Shantarama was working as CPI, Mudigere circle. He states that he took up the further investigation of the case from PSI on 25.4.2015 and received the enquiry report from Ujwala Kendra as per Ex.P.8 and P.9. On 26.4.2015 he sent the victim girl along with his staff to Government Hospital, Chikkamagaluru and deputed his staff for searching the accused. After arrest of the accused, he was produced before the court. The statement of Megharaju was recorded. He visited the spot on 28.4.2015 along with victim girl and witnesses and drew the mahazar, prepared the sketch of the spot and recorded the statements of Lalitha, Manjaiah, Lakshmamma, Arunkumara, Nagesha, Jayasheela and Pavitra. After receiving the medical report on 5.5.2015 and sketch from P.W.D. Department he handed over the further investigation to Krishnaraju on his transfer to some other place. P.W.14 after further investigation handed over the same to P.W.16. P.W.16 on investigation received the school certificate of victim girl. On 11.7.2015 he received the report from RFSL as per Ex.P.14. Ex.P.10 was received from P.W.D. department on 15.7.2015 and also obtained final opinion from District Hospital, Chikkamagaluru as per Ex.P.13 and after completion of investigation submitted final report against the accused. 15. It is relevant to state that as observed by the Trial Court, P.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that on 3.4.2015 the accused being her father took her to police station and got lodged the report against one boy, who seems have to committed rape on her. On investigation the police came to the spot for enquiring about that boy. The victim girl was brought to Ujwala Kendra. When the officials of Ujwala Kendra enquired her in presence of her mother and uncle she has specifically stated that the accused being her father has committed rape against her. The rest of the suggestions made by the accused side has been denied by the victim girl. Whereas the other prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. However in this appeal it is relevant for re-appreciation of the evidence independently, regarding charges for sexual assault on the victim being the daughter of the accused and also being minor. 16. Whereas the other prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. However in this appeal it is relevant for re-appreciation of the evidence independently, regarding charges for sexual assault on the victim being the daughter of the accused and also being minor. 16. On controvert to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant relating to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 who is the wife of the accused including the evidence of ASI, the Court below held that P.W.1 herself lodged the report against the accused as per Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.1(a) is the signature of P.W.1. It is stated that there is a delay in lodging the report to police. The victim girl was aged about 12 years at the time of incident. She states that accused is her father and he was doing coolie work and her mother was working in Anganawadi as Aaya. On 29.3.2015 the accused took the victim to go to Soraba for attending examination to get admission to Morarji school. But instead of taking her to Soraba, he brought her to Anegundi Estate and stayed in the coolie lane. After 3 – 4 days at about 9 p.m. under intoxication he asked her daughter to remove her clothes and had forcible sexual intercourse with her for 15 minutes, as a result she sustained pain in vagina. The accused assaulted the victim and threatened with her life if she discloses about the incident. One Nagaraja C.W.5 came and rescued her on 10.4.2015 when the accused was assaulting and informed the same to the police. She was taken to Ujwala Kendra and on enquiry she did not disclose anything about the incident. When P.W.2 her mother and uncle came to Ujwala Kendra and made enquiry, she disclosed that accused being her father committed rape on her. Accordingly, she lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1 with Balur police station. On producing before the court, the Judicial Magistrate had enquired about the incident and took her signature to the statement given by her under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. P.W.2 the mother of the victim girl has supported the case of prosecution. Accordingly, she lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1 with Balur police station. On producing before the court, the Judicial Magistrate had enquired about the incident and took her signature to the statement given by her under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. P.W.2 the mother of the victim girl has supported the case of prosecution. P.W.3 the writer of Anegundi Estate and P.W.4 the Supervisor of Anegundi Estate have stated that accused came along with the victim and worked there for a period of 5 days and they were staying in the coolie line and after 10 days, they saw the accused chasing the victim girl and assaulting her. They came to know about the incident from labourers and the same was reported to the police. On 28.4.2015 police and officials of Woman and Child Welfare Department came to the coolie line and drew the mahazar, the signature of P.W.4 as per Ex.P3(c) was taken on the mahazar. 17. P.W.5 who was working as District Child Protection Officer enquired the victim girl and conciliated in presence of her mother and uncle where the victim girl disclosed that the accused being her father committed rape against her on 2.4.2015 under intoxication. Accordingly, she recorded the enquiry report as per Ex.P.8 and P.9 on 10.4.2015 and 17.4.2015. Even the P.W.11, the Doctor, who examined the victim on requisition of Balur police had found that her vagina was congested, libia and majora were not grown completely, her virginity was ruptured and abrasions were found. On examination it was found that the victim girl had not even attained puberty. 18. On careful examination of evidence on record, the Trial Court has observed that P.W.1 herself lodged the report against the accused and noted that there was delay in lodging the report to police. The victim girl was aged about 12 years at the time of incident and she was in the custody of the accused and had threatened to her life, as a consequence she was not able to report the incident to anybody. Even the mother of the victim girl was away from the incident spot. The accused being the father of the victim girl had committed rape against his own daughter at the age of 12 years even when she had not attained puberty which is a heinous offence. Even the mother of the victim girl was away from the incident spot. The accused being the father of the victim girl had committed rape against his own daughter at the age of 12 years even when she had not attained puberty which is a heinous offence. The victim girl had deposed about the incident before the Judicial Magistrate when her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The conciliators of District Child Protection Unit, Chikkamagluru have submitted the report after conciliation on 10.4.2015 and 17.4.2015 where the victim has narrated the incident in presence of her mother and uncle. As per the RFSL report, the presence of semen stain was detected in the underwear of the accused. P.W.1 is a child witness and the entire evidence of P.W.1 clearly depicts that the accused being her father has committed rape on her she being a minor. The case of the prosecution could be easily believed as the prosecution witnesses and medical evidence, forensic report clearly corroborate with each other. Even the evidence of complainant victim girl is in conformity with the evidence of doctors P.W.8 and P.W.11. There is a chain of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The accused without considering the age and relationship of the victim girl committed rape under intoxication and threatened to her life, assaulted her if she discloses the incident to anybody and also committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, it indicates his sexual desire as well as conduct even on his own daughter. Accordingly, on appreciation of case of the prosecution and evidence on record, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused being the father of the victim girl who has committed rape on his daughter being a minor. I find no illegality or perversity in the findings given by the Trial Court. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The appeal filed by the accused does not hold any merits for interference of this court as there is no misdirect or misread by the Trial Court in convicting the accused. It is relevant to state that the offence committed by the accused is heinous. The accused being the father of the victim girl who is aged about 12 years, has committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. 19. It is relevant to state that the offence committed by the accused is heinous. The accused being the father of the victim girl who is aged about 12 years, has committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. 19. In this case, the accused being the father of the victim girl who is minor had committed rape on her at the scene of crime at Coolie Lane of Anegundi Estate. He is said to be the labourer working in that estate. This accused has committed heinous offence of rape on his own daughter that too a school going girl. He was extending life threat if she discloses about the said act committed by him to anybody, the same is borne out in her evidence itself. 20. On close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution, it is abundant clear that accused committed the rape on his own daughter. Therefore, the Trial court had rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by appreciation of entire evidence on record. As in this case, it does not call for any interference of the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has delivered considered judgment which is based upon the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused. 21. For the above reasons, I find that there is no perversity or infirmity in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that there is no necessity to revisit the impugned judgment. As the appeal is devoid of merits, the same is dismissed. As a consequence, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.10.2017 passed by the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Spl.C.(POCSO) No.31/2015 convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f)(i)(m) and 506 of IPC and Section 5(i)(m)(n) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, is hereby confirmed.