JUDGMENT : KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. The appellant Bachchu Singh @ Kamlesh, was tried by the court of Sessions Judge, Dausa in Sessions Trial No. 141/2014. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 10.7.2015 convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 363, 366A IPC and Section 11 read with section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The said court having convicted the appellant for above said offences, vide a separate order of even date sentenced the appellant as under:- U/s. 363 IPC - to undergo four years SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to undergo additional one month SI. U/s. 366(A) IPC - to undergo five years SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to undergo additional one month SI. U/s. 11 r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act - to undergo two years SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional six months SI. 2. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. A co-ordinate Bench vide S.B. Cr. Misc. (Suspension of Sentence) Application No. 188/2017 in S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 295/2017, on 10.5.2017, suspended the sentence of the appellant by passing the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal and more particularly looking to the period of sentence already served by the applicant and the fact that the decision of the appeal is likely to take time, but without expressing any final opinion on the merit and demerit of the case, I am inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to him during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-applicant Bachchu Singh @ Kamlesh S/o Shri Sugna Ram in Sessions Case No. 141/2014 shall remain suspended on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties bond of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court on 03.07.2017 and as and when called upon to do so. " 4. 50,000/- and two sureties bond of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court on 03.07.2017 and as and when called upon to do so. " 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant due to extreme poverty and penury could furnish personal bonds and bonds by the sureties. Hence, the appellant had filed an application bearing Inward No. 22778/17, praying therein that the appellant be released on his personal bonds. On the said application, this Court on 21.12.2017, passed the following order:- "Records have been received from the trial court. List the present appeal for final hearing and disposal on 04.01.2018." 5. Hence, today present appeal is being decided finally by reverting to the facts of the case. 6. Sheonath Meena (P.W.1) on 27.9.2014, submitted written report (Exhibit-P/2). The said written report when translated into English, reads as under:- "To SHO Saheb, Police Station Sikandara, District Dausa. Subject: Regarding lodging of the report for offence of kidnapping. Sir, It is submitted that on 4.5.2014, at about 6:30 PM, at our house programme of Milni (a ceremony before marriage) was going on. Suddenly, my daughter (name withheld to protect her identity) aged 10 years was kidnapped by a boy on motorcycle of red colour on the pretext of serving her juice. Thereafter, on 5.5.2014, my daughter was recovered from Lanka Police Post. The name of boy, who kidnapped my daughter is Bachchu Singh @ Kamlesh. Thus, Sir, it is prayed that above said accused be arrested and legal action be taken. Applicant Sheonath Meena S/o Musyaram Meena by caste Meena, r/o Dhani Musya ki Reta, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, (Raj.)." 7. Sheonath Meena (P.W.1) appeared in the court and stated that seven to eight months before the occurrence, marriage ceremony of his son Ramnath was being performed. His relatives had come. He is having a daughter aged ten years. The child went missing. They searched for her and then a police personnel from Dubbi Police Post came and named the child and asked whether his daughter is missing. Upon which, he said that family has been searching for the daughter and she had been kidnapped. The police personnel informed that your daughter was taken away a day before and he further relayed information that she is at Lanka Police Post. Upon which, he said that family has been searching for the daughter and she had been kidnapped. The police personnel informed that your daughter was taken away a day before and he further relayed information that she is at Lanka Police Post. He along with family members went to take daughter upon which daughter informed that she was taken away by Bachchu Singh @ Kamlesh. The daughter informed that motorcycle was of red colour and accused had taken her on the pretext that he shall serve her juice. 8. In cross-examination, Sheonath Meena P.W.1 stated that they searched for the daughter in the night till 10-11 PM. Even though child was found, they had lodged any complaint to the police. This witness admitted that her daughter was found on the next day. 9. To similar effect is the statement made by Shanti Devi (P.W.2) mother of the child. 10. Material witness for consideration of the court is victim, who had appeared in the court as P.W.3. Even though child was found, they had lodged any complaint to the police. This witness admitted that her daughter was found on the next day. 9. To similar effect is the statement made by Shanti Devi (P.W.2) mother of the child. 10. Material witness for consideration of the court is victim, who had appeared in the court as P.W.3. It will be apposite here to reproduce entire examination in chief and cross examination of child victim, as under:- *'kiFk fnykbZ xbZ%& iz0 & dkSulh d{kk esa i<+rh gks\ m0 & d{kk 5 esa i<+rh gwaA iz0 & vkids firkth D;k djrs gS\ m0 & esjs firkth [ksrh djrs gSA iz0 & firkth ds Lo;a dh tehu gS\ m0 & gka iz0 & [ksr esa D;k iSnk djrs gks\ m0 & [ksr ij ljlksa puk mxkrs gSA iz0 & lp cksyuk pkfg, ;k >wB cksyuk pkfg,\ m0 & lp cksyuk pkfg,A xokg dh izd`fr o le> ds vuqlkj xokg mRrj nsus es l{ke gSA gkftj vnkyr eqyfte cPpw flag dks tkurh gwa bds gkFk cPpw fy[kk gS o bld uke deys'k gS uksV & eqyfte cPpw dk nk;ka gkFk ns[kk x;k rks ml ij mldk uke cPpw eh.kk xqnk gqvk gSA esjs HkkbZ dk uke jkefuokl gSA djhc 7 eghus igys dh ckr gS eSa Hkxoku dks vxjcRrh tykus tk jgh Fkh jkLrs esa esjs dks cPpw flag feyk cPpw flag us esjs ls dgk fd rsj dks twl dks fiyk dj ykamxk esjs ls cPpw flag us dgk eksVjlkbZfdy ij cSB] eSa eksVjlkbZfdy ij cSB x;hA ;g esjs dks eksVjlkbZfdy ij cSBkdj dkQh nwj ij ys x;kA esjs dks cPpw flag dkSulh txg ij ysdj x;k esjs dks /;ku ugha gSA eSjs dks cPpw flag us dksbZ ijs'kku ugha fd;k u gh dksbZ NsM+NkM+ djh Fkh esjs lkFk cPpw flag us dksbZ xUnh ckr ugh djhA dkQh nwj ij ys tkdj cPpw flag esjs dks twl fiyk;k FkkA cPpw flag us fdlh ds edku ij ys x;k esjs lkFk cPpw flag us dqN ugh fd;k dksbZ ckr ugh gqbZ FkhA nwljs fnu lqcg cPpw flag eksVjlkbZfdy ij cSBk dj viuh cgu ds ys x;kA fQj ogk ,d vkneh vk;k Fkk mlds cPpw flag us dgk fd rsjs fy, eky ysdj vk;k gwa fQj vkneh us esjh rjQ ns[kdj dgk fd ;g rks NksVh gSA fQj cPpw flag dh cgu us dgk fd bldks NksM+dj vk tk rc cPpw flag esjs dks eksVjlkbZfdy ij cSBkdj ,d pk; dh FkM+h ij cSBkdj NksM+ x;kA fQj ,d iqfyl okyk vk;k og esjs dks iqfyl pkSdh ij ys x;k ogka ij esjs ikik vk;s og esjs dks ogka ls ys x;sA esjs ?kj ij vkdj tks Hkh esjs lkFk lkjh ?kVuk gqbZ og esjs eEeh ikik dks crk nhA ckn esa esjs dks esjs firkth Fkkus ij ysdj x;s Fks ogka ij iqfyl us fy[kki<+h djh Fkh pkd 'kqnk ,QvkbZvkj iznZ'kih0 3 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA rgjhj fjiksVZ iznZ'kih0 2 esa , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA eftLV~sV lkgc ds lkeus esjs c;ku gq, FksA esfM+dy ugh djkus ckcr izk0 i= iznZ'kih0 4 ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA jktdh; mPp izk0 fo|ky; tqjkaork dh <+k.kh esa i<+ jgh gwa ftl oDr cPpw flag esjs dks ys x;k ml oDr d{kk 5 esa gh i<+rh FkhA vad rkfydk iznZ'kih] 5 esjh d{kk 4 dj gSa esjh mez 10 lky gSA uksV%& xokg ns[kus ek= ls djhc 9&10 o"kZ dh yxrh gSA ftjg odhy eqyfte }kjk & Jherh ekyrh 'kekZ ,M+0 cPpw flag bl ?kVuk ls igys gekjs ?kj ij vkrk tkrk ugh Fkk cPpw flag esjs dks yky jax dh eksVjlkbZfdy ij ys x;k FkkA cPpw flag us esjs dks ekjk ihVk ugh u gh esjs dks M+jk;k /kedk;k FkkA cPpw flag us esjs 'kjhj ij dgha Hkh gkFk Hkh ugh yxk;k FkkA esjs ikik esjs dks ysdj vk;s Fks mlds fdrus fnu ckn Fkkus ij x;s irk ugh gSA iqu & ijh{k.k 5 fuy 11. In the present case, child victim has stated that accused had taken her to the house of his sister. There, one person came and accused made an attempt to sell the child. Who was the said person and who was called, no investigation was carried by the investigating agency to find the said person. No corroborative evidence was gathered. 12. Admittedly, the child examined is ten years old. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place on 4.5.2014. The child was recovered on 5.5.2014. The written report (Exhibit-P/2) leading to registration of formal FIR (Exhibit-P/3) was submitted on 27.9.2014 at 11:30 AM. Thus, there is delay of four months and twenty two days in lodging of the report. In the present case, delay assume importance. Furthermore, police post from where child victim was recovered, no Daily Diary was recorded to the effect that the child was taken away by the accused. All proceedings in the present case commenced on 27.9.2014 after four months and twenty two days of the occurrence. 13. Delay in the present case speaks volume. When the child was recovered from the police post Lanka, it was incumbent for the parents to inform that the child was taken away by the accused. Even the child victim had not disclosed to the police that she was taken away by the accused. Custody of the child was given to parents on 5.5.2014. The child victim on that day or subsequent day would have named the accused but the story and name of accused have surfaced in the FIR after four months and twenty two days. Furthermore, no documents has been proved on record from where it could be inferred that the name of the present appellant has surfaced as accused before submission of written report (Exhibit-P/2) and registration of FIR (Exhibit-P/3). 14. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that it cannot be ruled out that due to consultations and deliberations, and for other reasons, name of the accused was introduced as accused after four months and twenty two days of the occurrence. 15. Taking the conduct of the complainant and delay in lodging of the report and lack of corroborative evidence, this Court is of the view that it is not safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant. 15. Taking the conduct of the complainant and delay in lodging of the report and lack of corroborative evidence, this Court is of the view that it is not safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant. Hence, this court shall extend benefit of doubt to the appellant by way of abundant caution. 16. Consequently, the present appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. The appellant who has already undergone three years and three months be immediately set at liberty if he is not involved in any other case. The trial court shall ensure that the provisions of section 437A Cr.P.C., 1973 are complied with.