JUDGMENT : Virendra Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. The present jail appeal, under Section 383 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’) has been filed by accused-appellant Sita Ram Sharma (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) through Superintendent of District Jail, Varanasi, against judgment and order dated 22.5.2015 passed by Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court, Varanasi) in Session Trial No. 181 of 2013, (State vs. Sita Ram Sharma), Police Station (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.S.’) Cantt, District Varanasi, under Section 323/376 I.P.C., whereby, he has been acquitted for an offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to under go for one year simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of prosecution case are that PW-1, victim (name of the prosecutrix is not being disclosed in this judgment, she is being shown PW-1, victim’) is daughter of appellant, who is resident of Village Nimiyatar, P.S. Dugariya, District Gaya (Bihar). PW-1, victim appeared, on 29.5.2013 at 6:30 p.m., at P.S. Cantt, District Varanasi, with Sister Manju (PW-5), Director of DARE Organization (N.G.O.) 2656 C.I.M. Colony, Sikrol P.S. Cantt, and lodged First Information Report (Ex.Ka.1) (hereinafter referred to as ‘F.I.R.’) addressed to Child Welfare Committee (hereinafter referred to as “C.W.C”), alleging that she had left her house in 2006 because appellant, her father, used to commit rape with her and also beat her. He also used to commit rape with her elder sister and when her elder sister happened to pregnant, he got her pregnancy aborted. In F.I.R. it has also been stated that her father, appellant used to beat her mother to such extent that her mother got mentally sick. In view of above fact, she wanted to lodge her father in jail because she did not know that her father had committed how many such offences. It was also been stated that she became so fed up with his father that she fled away, leaving her house, and is away from her house since eight years. She hates her father and wish to get her father punished with severe punishment. Upon such information, Chik F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.6) was prepared by PW-7 Const. Rajesh Kumar and the said information was entered in General Diary (Ex.ka.7). She hates her father and wish to get her father punished with severe punishment. Upon such information, Chik F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.6) was prepared by PW-7 Const. Rajesh Kumar and the said information was entered in General Diary (Ex.ka.7). Victim was sent for medical examination and investigation was under taken by PW-4 S.I. Dhakeshwar Singh. 3. PW1-Victim was examined by PW-6, Dr. Krishna Yadav. According to him, secondary sexual character of victim were fully developed. No injury was found either on her body or on her private part; her hymen was torn; vagina admits two fingers easily. She had prepared vaginal smear slides of victim and sent it to pathologist for examination of spermatozoa. According to her, in pathological and radiological test, no dead or alive spermatozoa were found; and as per report of Child Medical Officer (hereinafter referred to as “C.M.O”), Varanasi, victim was aged about 19 years. She prepared Medico Legal Examination Report (Ex.Ka.4/1) and its supplementary report (Ex.Ka.5) but no definite opinion regarding rape could be given. 4. During investigation, S.I. PW-4, Dhakeshwar Singh (I.O.) recorded statement of PW-1-Victim, her sister, Director NGO (PW-5) and statement of appellant-Sita Ram Sharma. Meanwhile, he was transferred and further investigation was handed over to PW-3 S.I. Shivanand Mishra who perused medical report of victim and copied it in case diary. He produced the victim before Judicial Magistrate (ACJM-II), Varanasi, where her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Code. Meanwhile, he was also transferred and investigation was handed over to PW-2 S.I. Triveni Lal who recorded statement and asked the victim for inspection of the place of occurrence but victim did not give her consent. She was not ready to go to her village. On the request of victim, he did not transfer investigation to State of Bihar. Upon conclusion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.4), under Section 376, 323 IPC and Sections 4/6/10 POCSO Act, 2012 before Session Judge, Varanasi, who took cognizance of the offence and transferred trial before ASJ, Court No. 9. 5. On the request of victim, he did not transfer investigation to State of Bihar. Upon conclusion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.4), under Section 376, 323 IPC and Sections 4/6/10 POCSO Act, 2012 before Session Judge, Varanasi, who took cognizance of the offence and transferred trial before ASJ, Court No. 9. 5. Charges were framed against appellant under Section 376, 323 IPC which read as under:- eS Mh0Mh0 vks>k] vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] U;k;ky; la0-09] okjk.klh ,rn}kjk vki& lhrkjke 'kekZ iq= ik.Ms 'kekZ] ij fuEu vkjksi fojfpr djrk gWw %& ;g fd vki vfHk;qDr us vkidh iq=h ihfM+rk tks vkids lkFk vkids ?kj xzke fufe;k Mhg] Fkkuk Mqefj;k] ftyk x;k ¼fcgkj½ esa jgrh Fkh] ds lkFk o"kZ 2006 esa mlds ?kj NksM+dj Hkkxus ds iwoZ le;≤ ij ;g tkurs gq, fd og ml le; 12 o"kZ ls de vk;q dh vo;Ld Fkh] ds lkFk cykR~dkj fd;k djrs FksA vkidk ;g d`R; /kkjk 376 Hkk0n0la0 ds varxZr n.Muh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds izlaKku esa gSA ;g fd mijksDr vof/k esa vkius viuh vo;Ld iq=h ds lkFk cykRdkj djus ds fy, mlds ,rjkt djus ij mls ekjrs ihVrs Fks vkSj LosPN;k migfr dkfjr djrs FksA ,r}kjk vkidk ;g d`R; /kkjk 323 Hkk0n0la0 ds varxZr n.Muh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds izlaKku esa gSA vkjksi i<+dj vfHk;qDr dks lquk;k o le>k;k x;k] ftlls vfHk;qDr us budkj fd;k vkSj fopkj.k dh ekax dhA ,r}kjk vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr vkjksi esa vkidk fopkj.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk;xkA I, D.D. Ojha, Additional Session Judge, Court No. 9 Varanasi hereby charge you Sita Ram Sharma, son of Pandey Sharma as follows:- First, That you accused in the year 2006 used to commit rape with your daughter (victim) when she resides with you in your house at Village Nimiyatar, P.S. Dungariya, District Gaya (Bihar) before her rendering away from her house, knowing that she was below the age of 12 years, and thereby committed an offence which is punishable under Section 376 I.P.C., and comes within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly. That during aforesaid period, in order to commit rape with your daughter, you use to beat and voluntarily causes hurt on her objection, committed such act which is punishable under Section 323 I.P.C., and is within the cognizance of this Court. Charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Secondly. That during aforesaid period, in order to commit rape with your daughter, you use to beat and voluntarily causes hurt on her objection, committed such act which is punishable under Section 323 I.P.C., and is within the cognizance of this Court. Charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. You are hereby directed to be tried for the aforesaid charges. (Translated by Court) 6. In order to prove its case, total seven witnesses were produced by prosecution. PW-1-victim, is a witness of fact whereas PW-2, S.I. Triveni Lal Singh (I.O.); PW-3 S.I. Shivanand Mishra (I.O.); PW-4 Dharkeshwar Singh (I.O.); PW-5 Sister Manju, Incharge, DARE Institution, Varanasi; PW-6 Dr. Krishna Yadav and PW-7 Const. Rajesh Kumar are formal witnesses. 7. Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Code. He denied evidence produced by prosecution and stated that he had been called from his house for a meeting with his daughter (victim) and had been implicated in false case; his daughter had fled away from his house in 2006; he made best effort to search his daughter, but could not searched her out; and now after eight years, all of sudden she had been recovered but due to mistake and conspiracy, a false case was lodged against him. 8. Pursuant to opportunity given by Trial Court to appellant, he produced DW-1 Sanju Devi and DW-2 Prabha Devi who are his daughters. 9. Upon conclusion of trial, and after hearing arguments of both the parties, appellant was convicted and sentenced as above. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order, appellant has preferred this appeal. 10. Heard, Sri Vinay Saran (Amicus Curiae), Advocate appearing for appellant and learned A.G.A. for State. 11. 9. Upon conclusion of trial, and after hearing arguments of both the parties, appellant was convicted and sentenced as above. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order, appellant has preferred this appeal. 10. Heard, Sri Vinay Saran (Amicus Curiae), Advocate appearing for appellant and learned A.G.A. for State. 11. Learned Amicus Curiae for appellant submits that F.I.R. has been lodged after eight years and no explanation has been given for such inordinate delay; sole testimony of victim is neither trustworthy nor reliable; Trial Judge has no jurisdiction to try this case and pass impugned judgment and order as the offence was caused in exclusive jurisdiction of Session Division, Gaya, State of Bihar; and no offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Session Division, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh; ocular evidence is not supported by medical evidence; Trial Judge without discussing any merit or demerit of the case has passed the impugned judgment and order in a very cursory manner; appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; hence impugned judgment and order is illegal and liable to be set aside. 12. Per-contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposing the submission of learned Amicus Curiae, has submitted that the sole testimony of victim is sufficient for proving the case of prosecution; no further corroboration is required; though there is inordinate delay in lodging F.I.R. but it is self explained and justifiable in the facts and circumstances of this case; irregularity or jurisdictional error in conducting trial will not affect prosecution evidence; prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, hence appeal is liable to the dismissed. 13. We have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the entire record. 14. At the very outset, it is pertinent to point out that according to prosecution case, PW1-victim is resident of village-Nimiyatar, P.S. Dungariya, District Gaya, State of Bihar. 13. We have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the entire record. 14. At the very outset, it is pertinent to point out that according to prosecution case, PW1-victim is resident of village-Nimiyatar, P.S. Dungariya, District Gaya, State of Bihar. She has stated that it had been around 8-10 years, since she had left her house; behaviour of her father with her was not good; she used to sleep at night along with her brother Pankaj and her father, appellant, together; when they fell asleep, her father appellant used to commit rape with her; she understood the meaning of rape; she had told her mother about her being raped by father; since her father would beat her mother, she (her mother) could not protest; she had been raped 3-4 times at night for several days and getting fed up, she ran away from her house and reached the house of one Muslim family in Gaya District; there she stayed for 3-4 months; their behaviour was also not good, and they also tried to rape her, hence she ran away from there also, to Barh (District of Bihar); she came across, a boy Munna who brought her to his maternal aunt’s house, that aunt used to send her to collect garbage along with her own children, but when she refused, she (aunt) drove her away from her house; thereafter she went to Delhi, and stayed there with one Umar Raza; in Barh, she had lived with one Aftaab Alam also; there Aftab Alam’s sister rang her and called her to Delhi; after 5 years, she came from Delhi to Allahabad; in Allahabad, police nabbed her; police wanted to sent her to Aashram (Nari Niketan) but she refused, as she came to know that there also rape was being committed; then she was sent to Child Line and from there she was sent to Banaras Child Line Sikrol. According to her, she gave an application (Ex.Ka.1) in her own handwriting and signature to C.W.C., on the basis of whereof, case was lodged. She has further stated that she had also given an application (Ex.Ka.2) in her own handwriting that her criminal case be tried in Banaras. She was medically examined and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Code (Ex.Ka.3). 15. She has further stated that she had also given an application (Ex.Ka.2) in her own handwriting that her criminal case be tried in Banaras. She was medically examined and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Code (Ex.Ka.3). 15. PW-5, Sister Manju, Director of N.G.O. named DARE, has stated that victim did reside at Allahabad in the house of lady named Treesha George, who called her on phone stating that victim needs her help, as some wrong has happened to her. On her call, victim was brought at her institution at Varanasi on 6.5.2013; she had a counselling with her, whereupon, victim told that her father committed rape with her at the time when her age was 8-9 years; therefore, she had fled away to Delhi from her house and joined a job of maid servant; after 3-4 years, she again fled away from there, but caught by officials of Child Line Centre and thereafter she started a job of maid servant in the house of Tresha George (Allahabad). After counselling to victim, she traced out victim’s house and informed to C.W.C., Varanasi along with victim on 20.5.2013. On the direction of C.W.C, F.I.R. was lodged. She also handed over victim’s father (appellant) to police; victim was medically examined; and she had gone with victim to police station and victim was returned into her custody. 16. PW-6, Dr. Krishna Yadav, Medical Officer, District Woman Hospital, Varanasi has stated that on 29.5.2013 at 10:45 p.m., she had examined victim (PW-1) who had been brought before her by a lady Constable, C.P. No. 361, Pooja Rai (details of examination report has already been noted in para 3 of this judgment). 17. PW-4, S.I. Dhakeshwar Singh, (1st I.O.) of the case has stated that he was posted as Senior Sub-Inspector (S.S.I.) at P.S. Cantt on 29.5.2013 and undertook investigation of the case. During investigation, he had recorded statements of victim (PW-1), Smt. Manju (PW-5) and also of appellant. 18. PW-3, Shivanand Mishra (2nd I.O.) who had undertaken investigation after transfer of S.S.I. Dhakeshwar Singh (PW-4), has stated that during investigation, he had perused and copied medico legal and pathological report of victim; he had produced victim before Court for getting her statement recorded under Section 164 of Code and copied her statement in case diary. 19. 18. PW-3, Shivanand Mishra (2nd I.O.) who had undertaken investigation after transfer of S.S.I. Dhakeshwar Singh (PW-4), has stated that during investigation, he had perused and copied medico legal and pathological report of victim; he had produced victim before Court for getting her statement recorded under Section 164 of Code and copied her statement in case diary. 19. PW-2, S.I. Triveni Lal (3rd I.O.) who had undertaken investigation after transfer of PW-3, has stated that he had recorded supplementary statement of victim during investigation. According to him, victim had stated that she was not willing to return back to her parental house and had given an application that trial be not transferred to Bihar. According to him, on the application of victim, investigation of the case was not transferred to concerned police station of Bihar, instead he had submitted charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.4) under section 376 (2), 323 I.P.C. and 4/6/10 of POCSO Act, 2012 before Court. 20. PW-7, Constable Rajesh Kumar has proved Chick F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.6), and copy of G.D. (Ex.Ka.7), prepared by Constable Satya Pratap Singh, posted on 29.5.2013 with this witness. 21. To controvert the allegations made by prosecution, appellant has produced in defence his own two daughters DW-1 Sanju Devi and DW-2 Prabha Devi. 22. 15. DW-1, Sanju Devi, aged about 32 years, stated that the appellant is her father; PW1-victim is her youngest sister who was lost, about 9-10 years back when she (PW1-victim) was aged about 87 years. She has specifically stated that her father is innocent, all the charges levelled against him are false; her father had made herculean efforts to search the victim but failed. 23. DW-2 Prabha Devi has also stated in same way as D.W.-1 Sanju Devi had. She has stated that the charges levelled against her father by victim regarding rape with her and victim are false; her father is very innocent; he brought up and maintained her very well and to each siblings; and she and her sisters Sanju Devi are very happy in their matrimonial life. 24. In this case, serious allegations have been made by a daughter against her own father for rape. It is settled principle of law that if evidence of victim of rape is natural, trustworthy and reliable, no further corroboration is required. Thus it has to be seen whether statement of victim inspires confidence of the Court or not. 25. 24. In this case, serious allegations have been made by a daughter against her own father for rape. It is settled principle of law that if evidence of victim of rape is natural, trustworthy and reliable, no further corroboration is required. Thus it has to be seen whether statement of victim inspires confidence of the Court or not. 25. The prosecution case is based on sole testimony of victim. F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.1) has been lodged on 29.5.2013, wherein, it has been mentioned that victim had left her house in 2006 because her father (appellant) used to commit rape upon her. It is clear that F.I.R. has been lodged after 7 years of the incident. PW-1, Victim has stated that after leaving her house in 2006, she had resided in a Muslim family in Gaya District where she stayed for 3-4 months and then left that Muslim’s family house and fled away, as an attempt for rape with her was also made there. Thereafter, she had gone to Barh District and then came back to Patna. According to her in Patna, she came into contact with one Munna who led her to his aunt’s house and on the direction and supervision of that aunt, she used to collect garbage along with her (aunt’s) children and one day when she refused to do so, she (aunt) drove her away from her house. Thereafter, she left for Delhi and stayed with one Umar Raza and again with Aftab Alam for five years. Thereafter, she came back to Allahabad from Delhi. According to her, Allahabad police nabbed her and wanted to keep her in an Aashram (Nari Niketan) but she refused to do so because she knew that in Aashram, rape was being committed. Then she was sent to Child Line Center and from there, she was again sent to Banaras Child Line, Sikrol. 26. In cross-examination, she has stated that when her father committed rape, for the first time, penetrated his penis into her vagina, but no blood had come out and she did not suffer any pain. In cross-examination she made allegations against her own brother Prahlad and stated that at Barh, where she used to reside with her mother, her brother Prahlad had committed rape with her when was aged about 6-7 years. In cross-examination she made allegations against her own brother Prahlad and stated that at Barh, where she used to reside with her mother, her brother Prahlad had committed rape with her when was aged about 6-7 years. According to her, when her brother Prahlad had committed rape, first time with her, neither she felt any pain nor any blood came out. She has also stated that her father (appellant) used to commit rape with her elder sister Prabha Devi (DW-2). She stated that she did not know whether any pain or bleeding would happen with any girl at the time of rape committed for the first time. She has also stated that she had not made any allegation in F.I.R. against her brother because she knew that her brother was young at the time of occurrence; newly married; had two children and on that very account she did not intend to disturb his family. 27. In addition to above, in cross-examination, she has also admitted that she had not disclosed anything regarding rape committed by her father to any person during this period. In cross-examination, she had stated, when she met to a Maulana nearby a Masjid, upon query made by him, she said that her father used to beat her but she did not disclose anything regarding rape. Her statement, in this regard, as under:- **?kj NksMus ds ckn eS iSny fnu Hkj pyrh jgh jkr gks x;h rks ,d efLtn ds ikl eS cSB xbZ Fkh mlds ckn ,d ekSykuk }kjk ;g iwNus ij fd es vdsys ;gkW D;k dj jgh gWw es jksus yxhA mlds }kjk iwNus ij eSus crk;k fd fufEk;k VkM ls vk;h gWwA mlus eq>ls iwNk fd D;ksa vk;h gks rks eSus crk;k fd ikik eq>s ekjrs Fks eSus ekjus dh gh ckr crk;h cykRdkj dh ckr ugh crk;h FkhA 28. From perusal of her statement, it appears that she was also caught by Police (GRP), interrogated and sent to Child Line. According to her, she was medically examined. She has also stated that officials of Child Line wanted to send her in Balika Grah, but she refused to go. One Father Deepak took her away from father of Child Line and got her admitted in class 10th (private). She did not go to school and studied at the house of Father Deepak. According to her, after sometime she had fallen ill. One Father Deepak took her away from father of Child Line and got her admitted in class 10th (private). She did not go to school and studied at the house of Father Deepak. According to her, after sometime she had fallen ill. Father Deepak got her medically treated and thereafter sent her to a nurse (aunty Diza George), where she resided for 6-7 months and worked as maid servant. Thereafter she was taken to Sister Manju (PW-5). 29. Thus it is clear that during these 7-8 years, the victim met so many people, worked for so many people, in so many houses, she was also caught by police but she never disclosed to any one regarding offence of rape committed by her father. 30. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the statement of victim that rape was committed by her brother when she was at age of 5-6 years and also by his father (appellant) on several times, when she was 7-8 years old, but neither she felt pain nor any blood came out and also non disclosure of such incident to any person for 7-8 years, does not inspire our confidence and it is not safe to hold that prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 31. The offence, as alleged by PW1-victim also not supported by medical evidence. PW-6 Dr. Krishna Yadav has clearly stated that she could not say, whether, any rape was committed against victim or not. 32. F.I.R., although is not a substantive piece of evidence, but generally, if it is free from any infirmity, forms basis of prosecution case. It is settled principle of law that there is no time limit for lodging F.I.R., but if it is lodged after huge and unexplained delay and after counselling and consultation, it demolish the plinth of prosecution’s castle. In Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1972 SCC (Cri.) 543, where delay in lodging F.I.R., was of 20 hours without any proper justification, Court, setting aside conviction of appellant, held:- “The first information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced the trial. In Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1972 SCC (Cri.) 543, where delay in lodging F.I.R., was of 20 hours without any proper justification, Court, setting aside conviction of appellant, held:- “The first information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as, the names of eye witnesses present at there scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a Creature of after thought. It is therefore essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.” 33. In Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2016) 3 SCC (Crl.) 407, Court in case where F.I.R. was lodged after 5 years, quashed criminal proceeding, and held:- “Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. In our opinion, such extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by Respondent 2 herein against the appellants, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, Respondent 2 herein has tried to rope the appellants in criminal proceedings. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the FIR deserves to be quashed”. 34. In this case too, F.I.R. has been lodged after seven years of the alleged occurrence. Non disclosure of offence to any person or authority for seven years has made the conduct and behaviour of victim unnatural which render prosecution version doubtful. Record shows that victim has not lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Cantt. She had made a complaint to C.W.C., Varanasi only and that complaint was forwarded to police. Non disclosure of offence to any person or authority for seven years has made the conduct and behaviour of victim unnatural which render prosecution version doubtful. Record shows that victim has not lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Cantt. She had made a complaint to C.W.C., Varanasi only and that complaint was forwarded to police. Information to police was also not given to any police station when victim (PW-1) narrated story of rape either to Madam Treesa George, where victim was working as maid servant or when it came into knowledge of PW-5, Sister Manju on 6.5.2013 or into cognizance of C.W.C. on 20.5.2013. It was lodged on 29.5.2013 when her father, appellant, came and insisted her (victim) to return back to home but she refused to return. PW-5, Sister Manju has also stated that F.I.R. had been lodged on direction of C.W.C. In cross-examination, she said that she had gone with victim at police station for lodging F.I.R. It is also apparent from statement of PW1-victim and PW-5, Sister Manju that prior to lodging F.I.R., PW-1, victim was instigated, counselled and assisted by a team of N.G.O. including PW-5. Record further shows that appellant, poor father of the victim, upon information had come to victim and wanted to get her returned to home and as soon as he expressed his willingness, F.I.R. was lodged against him. In such situation, we are of the opinion that delay in lodging F.I.R., without any explanation, has created a serious doubt on the genuineness of prosecution case. 35. In addition to above, there is another serious lacuna in the prosecution case. As per prosecution case, victim and appellant are residents of Village Nimiyatar, P.S. Dugariya, District Bihar. This offence of rape, for which appellant has been prosecuted, had been committed prior to 7-8 years from lodging F.I.R. at village Nimiyatar, P.S. Dungariya, Session Division (District) Gaya, Bihar. It is not a case of prosecution that any offence of rape has been committed by appellant at any place in Session Division, Varanasi or in even at any place in Uttar Pradesh. Record shows that at very early stage of investigation, PW-4, S.I. Dhakeshwar Singh had learnt that the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of P.S. Cantt, Varanasi. Record shows that at very early stage of investigation, PW-4, S.I. Dhakeshwar Singh had learnt that the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of P.S. Cantt, Varanasi. In cross-examination, he has specifically stated that he had made entry in case diary that the offence was not related with jurisdiction of P.S. Cantt, District Varanasi and he had referred the case for legal opinion of higher officers. PW-2, another I.O., S.I. Triveni Lal Sen has also stated that he had tried to take the victim (PW-1) to the place of occurrence for its inspection, whereupon, she started weeping and insisted not to take her to her home. According to him, she did not agree to go to the place of occurrence and made an application that her case should not be transferred to Bihar and she would pursue her case here (in Uttar Pradesh) and get her father convicted. This witness (PW-2) has also stated that on the request of PW-1 (victim), he had not transferred investigation to Bihar and filed a charge-sheet against appellant. 36. PW-3 S.I. Shivanand Mishra, in his cross-examination, has stated that he had neither visited the place of occurrence nor had gone to village Nimiyatar, District Gaya (State of Bihar). When he learnt that place of occurrence belongs to District Gaya (Bihar), he had not felt the necessity of transfer investigation. Thus Investigating Officers (I.O.) of the case had not made any attempt either to visit the place of occurrence or to prepare any site plan. 37. Trial Judge, without making any attempt to peruse the record, to find out whether, offence was committed within Jurisdiction of Session Division, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) or not, took cognizance of offence and also framed charge, wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that offence was committed at Village Nimiyatar, Dugariya, District Gaya (Bihar). 38. Chapter XIII of the Code contains the provision regarding jurisdiction of Criminal Courts in inquiry and trials. Section 177 and Section 178 of this Chapter are relevant in this matter which are as under:- Section 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial : Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178. Section 177 and Section 178 of this Chapter are relevant in this matter which are as under:- Section 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial : Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178. Place of inquiry or trial : (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. (Emphasis added) 39. The aforesaid provision clearly provides that it is a general rule that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed, whereas, if there is uncertainty of place of occurrence; or offence was committed partly in one area and partly in another; or offence is continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one; or such offence consist of several acts done in different local areas; in such cases it may be inquired or tried by any Court having jurisdiction over any such local areas. 40. The word shall in Section 177 and the word may in Section 178 of the Code signifies that general rule regarding jurisdiction of criminal trial and enquires is that every offence must be tried or inquired by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. In some cases, covered by Section 178 of the Code, trial or inquiry may be conducted by another Court with aid of this Section. In such cases, if any Court, whose jurisdiction, is not covered by Section 177 of the Code takes cognizance and tries the offence in view of Section 178 of the Code, it must be shown and established by prosecution from record that such offence is covered by Section 178 of Code. In such cases, if any Court, whose jurisdiction, is not covered by Section 177 of the Code takes cognizance and tries the offence in view of Section 178 of the Code, it must be shown and established by prosecution from record that such offence is covered by Section 178 of Code. In this matter, it is not a case of prosecution / State that any offence of rape was committed at any place in Uttar Pradesh or this matter comes within the purview of Section 178 of the Code, whereas, fact of prosecution case as well as the charge dated 7.10.2013 framed by Trial Court specifically shows that the offence was committed at Village Nimiyatar P.S. Dungariya, District (Session Division) Gaya (State of Bihar). 41. Plea of jurisdiction was raised by appellant before Trial Court, but rejected on the ground that there was a direction of High Court for conclusion of Trial within four months and no prejudice had been caused to appellant. Jurisdiction empowers an authority to a court to proceed with trial. If a court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and proceed with trial, whole proceeding of such trial is a nullity. Although Section 462 of the Code protects some jurisdictional irregularity whereby no prejudice is caused to accused but this case is not covered by Section 462 of the Code. In this case, no Court of Session Division of State of Uttar Pradesh is empowered to take cognizance because offence was committed in State of Bihar and no offence either directly or indirectly has been committed within the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh. 42. In addition to above, it is also pertinent to mention at this juncture that object and purpose of the Code is that trial and investigation be conducted fairly. Accused-appellant is resident of District Gaya, Bihar; he was prosecuted at Varanasi, in another State, where appellant neither used to resides nor has any resources to defend himself. Victim (PW-1) was being assisted by PW-5, Sister Manju, Director DARE (N.G.O.). Neither investigation was conducted in relation to place of occurrence nor evidence was produced regarding place of occurrence and appellant was deprived of cross-examine to prosecution witnesses regarding place of occurrence which shows that serious prejudice has been caused to appellant. 43. Victim (PW-1) was being assisted by PW-5, Sister Manju, Director DARE (N.G.O.). Neither investigation was conducted in relation to place of occurrence nor evidence was produced regarding place of occurrence and appellant was deprived of cross-examine to prosecution witnesses regarding place of occurrence which shows that serious prejudice has been caused to appellant. 43. It is settled principle of law that a Court, if has not been conferred jurisdiction by any Statutes or Act, it cannot acquire jurisdiction suo moto or on the application of the victim or any party dealing with the case. In Shri Rajendra Ramchandra kavalekar vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. AIR 2009 SC 1792 , Court has held:- “The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to criminal offence would be decided on the basis of place of occurrence of the incident and not on the basis of where the complaint was filed and the mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of another court. The venue of enquiry or trial is primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint or charge sheet. Section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.” (Emphasis added) 44. Supreme Court, in Manoj Kumar Sharma’s case (supra) where deceased had died in her matrimonial house within the jurisdiction of Mallana, District Ambala (Punjab) and upon inquiry, it was found that no offence had made out. F.I.R. was lodged for same offence after 5 years at Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), while quashing F.I.R. on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, has held as under:- 27. “The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to a criminal offence would be decided on the basis of the place of occurrence of the incident. In the instant case, the suicide was committed at Ambala. “The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to a criminal offence would be decided on the basis of the place of occurrence of the incident. In the instant case, the suicide was committed at Ambala. Ambala Police closed the case after fulfilling the requirements of Section 174 of the Code holding that there was no foul play in the incident and also there was no requirement of lodging FIR under Section 154 as none of the family members of the deceased raised any suspicion over the death even though the death was committed within seven years of marriage. Also, there is no evidence of it being a continuing offence. Hence, the offence alleged cannot be said to have been committed wholly or partly within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court at Durg. Prima facie, none of the ingredients constituting the offence can be said to have occurred within the local jurisdiction of that Court”. 28. In the case on hand, as per the materials on record, in Crime No. 194 of 2005, charge-sheet has been filed and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has taken cognizance of the proceedings. In the present fact situation, we are of the considered opinion that the court at Durg has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and the proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction since the entire cause of action for the alleged offence had purportedly arisen in the city of Ambala.” 45. It is also pertinent to mention that PW-1, victim has not only made allegations against her father and brother regarding rape committed with her, she has also made a false allegation regarding rape committed by her father (appellant) with her own sister. DW-1 Sanju Devi and DW-2, Prabha Devi are real sisters of victim. They have categorically stated that her younger sister (victim) had fled away at the age of 7-8 years about 9-10 years ago. They have also stated that the allegation of rape committed by her father, upon victim and her sister (DW-2) are false. According to them, their father (appellant) had made herculean efforts to trace out their sister (victim) and when he could not succeed, became hopeless. 46. They have also stated that the allegation of rape committed by her father, upon victim and her sister (DW-2) are false. According to them, their father (appellant) had made herculean efforts to trace out their sister (victim) and when he could not succeed, became hopeless. 46. From perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 22.5.2015 passed by learned Trial Judge, it transpires that learned Judge has neither discussed the evidence available on record nor properly discussed the submission made by defence counsel, particularly regarding jurisdiction, delay in lodging F.I.R. and also on trustworthiness of statement of PW-1 victim, or has appreciated the same correctly. 47. Thus, in view of the above discussion, we are of considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant-Sita Ram Sharma. Besides, the trial itself was without territorial jurisdiction. He is entitled to be acquitted against charge levelled against him. The judgment and order passed by Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court, Varanasi in Session Trial No. 181 of 2013 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 48. The appellant is in jail. He, if not wanted in any other case, shall be released forthwith. 49. Keeping in view provisions of Section 437-A of Code, appellant Sita Ram Sharma is hereby directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond of the sum of Rs. 10,000/-and two reliable sureties of the like amount, before the Trial Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against judgment or for grant of leave, appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Supreme Court. 50. A copy of this judgment be sent to Trial court and concerned Superintendent of Jail by FAX for immediate compliance. Compliance report whereof be submitted within one month. 51. Lower court’s record be also sent back along with a copy of this judgment. 52. Sri Vinay Saran, learned Amicus Curiae has assisted the Court very diligently. We provide that he shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs. 15,000/-. State Government is directed to ensure payment of aforesaid fee through Additional Legal Remembrancer posted in the office of Advocate General at Allahabad, to Sri Vinay Saran, Amicus Curiae, without any delay and, in any case, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.