JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the II Additional District and Sessions (Special) Judge, D.K., Mangaluru in Special Case No.85/2015 dated 17.10.2018. 2. This case has been posted for hearing on interlocutory application and with the consent of the learned High Court Government Pleader, same is taken up for final disposal. 3. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant complainant. Notice to respondent accused is dispensed with. 4. The genesis of the case of prosecution in brief is that on 5.3.2014 at 5.30 p.m. victim P.W.1 aged about 15 years was coming back home after her school. The accused who was known to the victim came near her on a motorcycle and asked her to give the mobile number, for which, she told that she is not having the mobile number and thereafter, accused told her that he would drop her home. The victim girl got frightened and started walking fast. Accused followed her and pulled her hand and tried to outrage her modesty. At that time, P.Ws.2 and 3 came and asked the victim as to what happened. Immediately, accused left the spot on his motorcycle. Victim was taken to house and on the third day, complaint was registered. On the basis of the complaint, case was registered in Crime No.40/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A (i) (iv) of IPC and under Sections 11(1) and 12 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, the Special Court took cognizance and secured the presence of the accused. After following the formalities, charge was framed and read over to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, trial was fixed. In order to prove the case of prosecution, it has got examined 12 witnesses and got marked 9 documents. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said order, the State is before this Court. 5. The main grounds urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader are that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below is invalid, contrary to law, evidence and material placed on record. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said order, the State is before this Court. 5. The main grounds urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader are that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below is invalid, contrary to law, evidence and material placed on record. It is his submission that though there is evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and there is corroboration in their evidence, the trial Court ignoring their evidence has come to a wrong conclusion in acquitting the accused. It is his further submission that accused has committed a serious offence of outraging the modesty and the victim herself has clearly stated that he has pulled her hand with an intention to outrage her modesty. The delay in filing the appeal has been properly explained and even if there is delay, it is not fatal to the case of prosecution. The trial Court only on the basis of delay and not relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 has wrongly acquitted the accused. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records including the documents which were made available by the learned High Court Government Pleader. 7. P.W.1 is the victim. In her evidence, she has deposed that usually, she used to go to school and come back home at 5.30 p.m. On 5.3.2015 she was coming back from the school. When she came near Muthramajalu transformer, the accused came from backside on a motorcycle and stopped the vehicle and asked her name, for which, she told her name as Lavanya and he asked as to why she is coming alone and that where are her friends. She told that her friend is coming behind. He asked whether she is having a mobile number, for which victim replied that she is not having the mobile. Accused asked as to whether her mother is having a mobile phone and though she knew the mobile number, she told that she does not know the number. She told that her friend is coming behind. He asked whether she is having a mobile number, for which victim replied that she is not having the mobile. Accused asked as to whether her mother is having a mobile phone and though she knew the mobile number, she told that she does not know the number. It is further stated that accused asked her to come near him and talk, for which, she told that her junior aunt is calling and that she has to go home, for which, accused told that he will drop her. As she was frightened, she started moving fast, at that time, accused held her hand and pulled her. As she got frightened, she made hue and cry. At that time, an auto rickshaw came from opposite direction and one Radhakrishna asked as to what happened and she informed the incident and immediately, the accused by taking his motorbike went away. Thereafter, she went to the house and informed the same to her aunt. On the next day i.e., on 6.3.2015 they informed the said fact to her head Master C.W.7. On 7.3.2015 she went to police station and filed the complaint as per Ex.P1. She has also identified the spot mahazar Ex.P2 and the photographs. During the course of cross-examination she has deposed that the school is at a distance of 6 kms and everyday, after certain distance she will board the auto to go to school and come back and by alighting at a distance, would go back home by walk. She has further deposed that usually her friend Nethravathi will accompany her to school and also while coming back. On 5.3.2015 she has gone to school in an auto rickshaw and came back in the auto rickshaw. She has deposed that while coming to house by alighting at transformer, Muthrimajalu place will not come. The alleged incident has taken place at GolitthadiKudlur junction road. It is a tar road and it is at a distance of 200 mtrs. away from her house. 8. P.W.2 is the auto driver. He has deposed that he knows the incident of outraging of P.W.1 by the accused. That on 5.3.2015 he along with C.W.3 were going in an autorickshaw, at that time, P.W.1 was returning from the school and was proceeding on the side of the road and she made a cry. away from her house. 8. P.W.2 is the auto driver. He has deposed that he knows the incident of outraging of P.W.1 by the accused. That on 5.3.2015 he along with C.W.3 were going in an autorickshaw, at that time, P.W.1 was returning from the school and was proceeding on the side of the road and she made a cry. Immediately, they went there and by that time, accused was leaving that place. He has deposed that he could not identify the accused before the Court since he had not seen the face of the accused. He has been partly treated as hostile. In the cross-examination he has deposed that on the date of the alleged incident he went along with P.W.3 to Muthrimajalu to visit the relatives of P.W.3. He heard the screaming voice at a distance of 1 km. Except that nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. 9. P.W.3 is the passenger who was there in the auto rickshaw. He has deposed that on 5.3.2015 when they were coming in an autorickshaw, at that time, a person who was on the motorbike pulled the hands of P.W.1 and by seeing them, he left the place on the motorbike and thereafter, when enquired, P.W.1 explained as to what had happened. He has identified the accused before the Court. 10. P.W.4 is the junior aunt of P.W.1. She has only stated that P.W.1 came and informed about the alleged incident. 11. P.W.5 is the Head Master of the school in which victim was studying. Victim informed about the incident to him on 6.3.2015. He has also furnished the date of birth certificate of the victim. 12. P.W.6 is the auto rickshaw driver. He is the witness to the spot mahazar Ex.P2. 13. P.W.7 is also the spot mahazar pancha to Ex.P2. 14. P.W.8 is the seizure mahazar pancha to Ex.P7. This witness has not fully supported the case of prosecution. 15. P.W.9 is also the seizure mahazar pancha to Ex.P7. He has also partly supported the case of prosecution. 16. P.W.10 is the ASI who received the complaint as per Ex.P1 and registered the case and issued FIR as per Ex.P8. 17. P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. 18. P.W.12 is the medical officer who examined P.W.1 and issued the certificate as per Ex.P9. 16. P.W.10 is the ASI who received the complaint as per Ex.P1 and registered the case and issued FIR as per Ex.P8. 17. P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. 18. P.W.12 is the medical officer who examined P.W.1 and issued the certificate as per Ex.P9. He has deposed that no physical injuries were found over the body of P.W.1. 19. On going through the evidence of witnesses and the material placed on record, the first aspect which the trial Court has dealt is that there is a delay of three days in filing the complaint. Admittedly, the alleged incident has taken place on 5.3.2015 at about 5.30 p.m. and the complaint is registered on 7.3.2015. There is a delay in filing the complaint. Neither in the evidence of P.W.1 nor in the complaint Ex.P1 any explanation has been made as to for what reason the delay has been caused. I am conscious of the fact that whenever a case has been registered under the POCSO Act regarding outraging modesty of woman, no woman will come forward to file the complaint immediately. But in the absence of proper explanation, the delay would be considered as a fatal aspect to decide the case. When delay occurs the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation and there is every possibility of false implication of the accused. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging of the complaint should be satisfactorily explained. If it is not explained, it is not safe to rely upon such complaint and convict the accused. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1973 SC 501 where in at paragraph No.12 of the said judgment, it has been observed as under: “12. It is in the evidence of Valanjiaraju that the house of Muthuswami is at a distance of three furlongs from the village of Valanjiaraju. Police Station Valavanthi is also at a distance of three furlongs from the house of Muthuswami. It is in the evidence of Valanjiaraju that the house of Muthuswami is at a distance of three furlongs from the village of Valanjiaraju. Police Station Valavanthi is also at a distance of three furlongs from the house of Muthuswami. Assuming that Muthuswami PW was not found at his house till 10.30 p.m. on March 12, 1970, by Valanjiaraju, it is not clear as to why no report was lodged by Valanjiaraju at the police station. It is, in our opinion, most difficult to believe that even though the accused had been seen at 2 p.m. committing the murder of Madhandi deceased and a large number of villagers had been told about it soon thereafter, no report about the occurrence could be lodged till the following day. The police station was less than two miles from the village of Valanjiaraju and Kopia and their failure to make a report to the police till the following day would tend to show that none of them had witnessed the occurrence. It seems likely, as has been stated on behalf of the accused, that the villagers came to know of the death of Madhandi deceased on the evening of March 12, 1970. They did not then know about the actual assailant of the deceased, and on the following day, their suspicion fell on the accused and accordingly they involved him in this case. 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 at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. 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 eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. In the present case, Kopia, daughterinlaw of Madhandi deceased, according to the prosecution case, was present when the accused made murderous assault on the deceased. Valanjiaraju, stepson of the deceased, is also alleged to have arrived near the scene of occurrence on being told by Kopia. Neither of them, nor any other villager, who is stated to have been told about the occurrence by Valanjiaraju and Kopia, made any report at the police station for more than 20 hours after the occurrence, even though the police station is only two miles from the place of occurrence. The said circumstance, in our opinion, would raise considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of those two witnesses and point to an infirmity in that evidence as would render it unsafe to base the conviction of the accused appellant upon it.” Be that as it may. Even as could be seen from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 though the prosecution has cited them as eyewitnesses, P.W.2 in his evidence has deposed that when he came and asked P.W.1 as to what has happened, she revealed that accused has pulled her hand, which itself goes to show that he is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. If really, he was an eyewitness and he has seen the accused pulling the hands of the victim immediately he could have stopped the auto and questioned the accused and even he could have abused the accused. The said fact indicates that he has reached the place only after the alleged incident, if at all it has taken place. Even the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be relied upon since he was also traveling in the same auto. P.W.2 has also not identified the accused. He has clearly deposed that he has not seen the face of the accused. Even the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be relied upon since he was also traveling in the same auto. P.W.2 has also not identified the accused. He has clearly deposed that he has not seen the face of the accused. When he has not seen the face of the accused, then there is no chance of P.W.3 seeing the accused pulling the hand of the victim. As such, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is not going to help the case of prosecution in any manner. 20. In the evidence of P.W.1 though she has stated that accused has pulled her hand, but she has not specifically stated with what intention the said act has been done. I am conscious of the fact that under Section 29 of the POCSO Act the intention has to be presumed. But the alleged incident has taken place on 5.3.2015 and the complaint is registered on 7.3.2015. Even though the victim has stated about the alleged incident immediately after going home, no complaint has been registered. The said fact has been also informed to P.W.5, the Head Master and he has also not taken any steps. In that light, the incident itself appears to be doubtful. Even the evidence of P.W.1 does not appear to be trustworthy and reliable. She has deposed that everyday she used to go to the school along with her friend and used to come back with her. When they were traveling together, then no explanation has been given as to why her friend on that day has not come along with her. Be that as it may. 21. When there is delay of three days in filing the complaint and the victim has also stated that the place of incident is different from the place she usually alight from the auto rickshaw under such circumstances, the credibility of the evidence of victim is also doubtful. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence and the material placed on record has come to a right conclusion in acquitting the accused. There are no good grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal being devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. In view of the same, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration. There are no good grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal being devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. In view of the same, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.