JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Court under POCSO Act, 2012, at Belagavi in SC No.14/2017, convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. Ashok R Kalyanshetty appearing for the appellant and Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath, learned HCGP for the respondent-St ate and perused the material on record. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant/PW1 was residing at No.S9, Guruprasad Apartment, Belagavi along with her 2nd husband i.e. the accused and her children namely CW6(PW3) and CW7 born to her from her first husband. PW3/victim girl is a minor aged about 15 years. On 16.8.2016 at about 4 p.m., the complainant and her elder daughter had gone to hospital and PW3 was alone in the house. At about 4.30 p.m., the accused inspite of knowing that the victim is a minor and he is her step father, dragged her to the bedroom and committed forcible penetrative sexual assault on her and threatened her saying that if she disclosed the incident to others, she as well as her sister and mother will be killed. 4. On the basis of the complaint lodged by PW1-the mother of the victim, a case was registered against the accused in Crime No.248/2016 of Malamaruti Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid for the aforesaid offence. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and claimed to be tried. 6. To establish the case of prosecution, PW1 to PW13 were examined and Ex.P1 to P26 and MO1 to MO-15 were got marked. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, he did not choose to lead any evidence on his behalf. 7. The trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record convicted and sentenced the accused for the charged offences as under : The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 2 months, for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 7. The trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record convicted and sentenced the accused for the charged offences as under : The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 2 months, for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 8. Assailing the aforementioned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused has contended as under : The material on record is totally insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There are material improvements in the testimony of the complainant as well as the prosecutrix, which go to the root of the prosecution case. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint which is unexplained. The marriage between PW1 and the accused has not been established. The Medical evidence does not support the case of prosecution and the Lady Medical Officer who examined the victim girl has not been examined. The trial court has not appreciated the cross examination conducted by the defence and the impugned judgment has been passed only on the basis of examination in chief of the prosecution witnesses. The clothes of the victim girl said to have been worn at the time of incident has not been collected and sent for chemical examination. The reasons assigned for convicting the accused are not in accordance with law and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 9. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent –State has contended that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by examining the material witnesses, who have supported the case of prosecution. 9. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent –State has contended that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by examining the material witnesses, who have supported the case of prosecution. PW1 and PW3 have categorically stated about the heinous act committed by the accused-appellant and their evidence does not suffer from any serious infirmities. The victim girl has given her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before PW9 and she has clearly deposed about the incident in question and there is nothing elicited in her cross examination, so as to disbelieve the case of prosecution. The prosecution has been able to establish that the victim-PW3 was a minor at the time of incident. Therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused for the charged offences. Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 10. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that accused-appellant filed an application seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The said application came to be dismissed by this court vide order dated 05.03.2020. The Hon’ble Apex Court while dismissing the special leave to appeal (Crl.) No.4539/2020, preferred by the appellant, by its order dated 07.10.2020, directed this court to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months, without being influenced by the impugned order. 11. It is the case of prosecution that the complainant -PW1 married the accused in the year 2008 and he is her second husband. She was living along with him and her two children born to her from her first husband, in Prasad apartment, situated at Shivabasava Nagar in Belagavi. On 16.08.2016, she and her first daughter namely, CW7 had been to the hospital and at that time the accused committed forcible penetrative sexual assault on her second daughter, namely PW3, a minor and threatened her with dire consequences and thereby committed the charged offences. 12. The complaint is lodged by PW1, mother of the victim on 06.10.2016 at about 8.15 p.m. In the complaint, she has stated that she was married to one Asfaq in the year 1999 and it was a love marriage. In their wedlock, two girl children were born. 12. The complaint is lodged by PW1, mother of the victim on 06.10.2016 at about 8.15 p.m. In the complaint, she has stated that she was married to one Asfaq in the year 1999 and it was a love marriage. In their wedlock, two girl children were born. In the year 2008, in view of uncordial relationship between them, they started living separately and thereafter in the same year, in the month of September, she married the accused, who assured that he will take care of her children and herself properly. She has stated that since her marriage with the accused, they have been living cordially inspite of some petty quarrel between them. It is further stated that on 06.10.2016, the accused came to the house consuming alcohol and told her that he is going to Goa and asked her to give his clothes. When the victim came home, he dragged her and started calling her. The victim started crying. Thereafter the accused went out of the house and poured petrol on his bike and set fire to it. When she enquired with her daughter, she informed her that on 06.10.2016, when the complainant and her sister had been to the hospital, at about 4.30 p.m., accused committed forcible penetrative sexual assault on her and threatened to kill them, if she disclosed the said fact to others. 13. The victim girl was produced before PW4 for medical examination on 07.10.2016. As per Ex.P8 her age was estimated between 14 to 18 years. According to PW4 victim was examined by a Gynecologist, according to whom, the hymen was not intact. There was no injury noticed on her private part, or other parts of the body. As per the report–Ex.P9 submitted by PW4, which is after receipt of FSL report, the girl was used to an act like that of sexual intercourse. Further, as per Ex.P9, the age of the victim is between 14 to 16 years. 14. The victim’s statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded during the course of investigation as per Ex.P17 on 06.10.2016. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by PW9 on 13.10.2016. The said statement is marked as Ex.P7. 15. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the victim girl was a minor aged about 14 years at the time of incident. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by PW9 on 13.10.2016. The said statement is marked as Ex.P7. 15. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the victim girl was a minor aged about 14 years at the time of incident. The prosecution has got examined PW5 namely a Clerk working at Little Scholar Academy, wherein, the victim girl was studying. Ex.P13 is the school certificate with regard to the date of birth of the victim, wherein it is shown that as per school record, her date of birth is 12.01.2002. The victim in her statement has stated that her date of birth is 12.01.2002 and she was studying in 10th standard at the time of incident. PW1 has also stated that the date of birth of her daughter is 12.01.2002 and her daughter was aged about 14 years at the time of incident. 16. The alleged incident has taken place on 16.08.2016. The document at Ex.P8 and P9 also shows that the victim was aged between 14 to 16 years. There is no serious dispute raised by the defence with regard to the age of the victim. Even otherwise, from the above evidence of PW5 as well as the documents at Ex.P9 and P13, the prosecution has been able to establish that the victim was a minor at the time of incident. 17. The defence has vehemently contended that the prosecution has not established that PW1 had married the accused and he was residing along with PW1 and her two children. From the cross examination of PW1 conducted on 14.08.2017, it is pointed out that, she got divorced from her first husband about a year prior. Therefore, it is contended that if she had divorced her husband about a year prior to 2017, then it cannot be said that PW1 married the accused in the year 2008, when her marriage with the first husband was subsisting. 18. PW1 in her chief examination has deposed that she married the accused in the year 2008. In the cross examination, she has stated that from 1999 to 2007 she was living with her first husband namely, Asfaq Mulla and thereafter he started suspecting her fidelity and started giving torture to her and since 2008 he started residing separately. She has stated that from 2008 to 2015 she was residing with the accused. 19. In the cross examination, she has stated that from 1999 to 2007 she was living with her first husband namely, Asfaq Mulla and thereafter he started suspecting her fidelity and started giving torture to her and since 2008 he started residing separately. She has stated that from 2008 to 2015 she was residing with the accused. 19. In the cross examination of PW3 i.e., the victim girl, she has stated that her father had left them about 9 to 10 years ago and he was residing separately and there was some quarrel between her father and mother. Thereafter, the accused started visiting their house and used to pay the school fees and he was looking after the household expenses. 20. PW-7 is a neighbour, residing in house No.11 in the same apartment where the complainant was residing. He has stated that the accused used to visit the said apartment and hence, he was familiar with the accused. 21. PW-8 is a relative of PW-1. He has stated that there was a quarrel between PW-1 and her first husband, as such, he had left the company of PW-1 and her children. Thereafter, the accused started residing with PW1, telling that he will look after PW-1 and her children. He has further stated that they performed the marriage of accused with PW-1 at Vaijanatha temple in Maharashtra. Ex.P.5, photos are marked through the said witness. 22. This Court is not expected to decide as to whether PW-1 is the legally wedded wife of accused or that the marriage between PW-1 and the accused was a valid marriage. It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2008, first husband of PW-1 left her company and thereafter, the complainant started residing with the accused along with her children. It is the case of prosecution that the accused committed forcible penetrative sexual assault on PW-3 i.e., the second daughter of PW-1, a minor, on 16.08.2016 when she was alone in the house and thereafter, threatened her with dire consequences not to disclose the incident to others. From the evidence of PWs-1, 3, 7 and 8, it can be seen that the accused was residing with PW-1 since 2008, after her first husband left her company. From the evidence of PWs-1, 3, 7 and 8, it can be seen that the accused was residing with PW-1 since 2008, after her first husband left her company. From the evidence and material on record, it can be seen that after the first husband of PW-1 deserted her in the year 2008, the accused started residing with her and her children and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the relationship of the accused with PW-1 has not been established and also that he was not residing with PW-1 and her children, cannot be accepted. 23. The charges are framed for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Charges against the accused are that, even though the victim becomes his daughter by relation, the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on her. It is the specific case of prosecution that the victim was under 16 years of age. However, charges are not framed under Section 376 (2) (f), (i) or (k) of IPC, as it stood on the date of commission of offence, wherein the punishment prescribed is more serious. Further, there is no charge framed under Section 5 of the POCSO Act, 2012, to be precise, under Section 5 (n), wherein the punishment prescribed is under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Section 5 (n) reads as under: “5.(n)whoever being a relative of the child through blood or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster care or having a domestic relationship with a parent of the child or who is living in the same or shared household with the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on such child;” …… 24. However, in view of the contents of the charge and in view of the defence taken by the accused, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the accused. Further, no contention has been raised in this behalf. 25. Admittedly, the incident is alleged to have taken place on 16.08.2016 at about 4.30 p.m. in the apartment where PW-1 was residing along with her children and the accused. The complaint came to be lodged on 06.10.2016. Further, no contention has been raised in this behalf. 25. Admittedly, the incident is alleged to have taken place on 16.08.2016 at about 4.30 p.m. in the apartment where PW-1 was residing along with her children and the accused. The complaint came to be lodged on 06.10.2016. PW-1 has deposed that on 06.10.2016, the victim came to the house weeping and the accused also came to the house and told her that he has to go to Goa and asked her to give his clothes. When the victim entered the house, he dragged her hands and called her and then the victim started weeping. Thereafter, the accused went out and poured petrol to his motorcycle and set fire to it. At that time, when PW-1 questioned her daughter i.e., the victim, she disclosed about the incident which took place on 16.08.2016. PW-1 has stated that her daughter disclosed to her that when she had gone to the hospital with her first daughter, accused came to the house and gave PW3 some Fanta juice to drink, and when she re-gained consciousness, she was in the bed room. Then she told her that the accused committed forcible penetrative sexual assault on her. It is also stated that there was bleeding from the private part of the victim and accused himself gave her bath and threatened her not to disclose the incident to others. 26. In the evidence of PW-3, she has stated that the accused gave Fanta juice to her and thereafter, she was not aware as to what happened and when she gained consciousness, she was in the bed room. Accused asked her to take bath and at that time, there was bleeding in her private part. She has stated that accused committed penetrative sexual assault on her and thereafter, threatened her with dire consequences, if she disclosed the incident to others. She has further deposed that the accused quarreled with her mother and thereafter, set fire to his bike and being scared, she disclosed the earlier incident to her mother and thereafter, her mother went to the police station and lodged the complaint. 27. According to PW-3, i.e., the victim, the accused gave some juice to her and thereafter, she did not know what happened and when she regained consciousness, she was in the bed room and there was bleeding in her private part. 27. According to PW-3, i.e., the victim, the accused gave some juice to her and thereafter, she did not know what happened and when she regained consciousness, she was in the bed room and there was bleeding in her private part. Even PW-1 has deposed that PW-3 told her that accused gave her some juice and thereafter, when she regained consciousness, she was in the bed room. 28. It is relevant to see that in the complaint lodged by PW-1, she has not mentioned about accused giving juice to PW-3 and thereafter committing forcible penetrative sexual assault on PW-3. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate PW-9, on 13.10.2016. In the said statement, the victim has nowhere stated that the accused gave some juice and then committed penetrative sexual intercourse, when she became unconscious. 29. PW-9 is the Magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P.7. Perusal of statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. does not indicate that prior to committing the offence, the accused gave juice to PW-3. On the other hand, in the said statement, victim has stated that the accused called her to the bed room and thereafter, removed her inner garments and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. It is further stated that when she went for having bath, she noticed bloodstains on her clothes. She has stated that, she did not inform the incident to her mother since accused had threatened her. Hence, for the first time, while giving evidence before the Court, both PW-1 and PW-3 have stated that the accused gave some juice to PW-3 before committing the offence. If the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 is appreciated, then according to them, after drinking the juice victim did not know what happened thereafter and when she gained consciousness, she was in the bed room. It is stated that there was bleeding from her private part and her clothes were blood stained. In the cross-examination of PW-3, she has stated that the police had asked to give the blood stained clothes, however, it was not available and therefore, the police collected the clothes of PW-3 which she was wearing when she had visited the hospital for medical examination. In the cross-examination of PW-3, she has stated that the police had asked to give the blood stained clothes, however, it was not available and therefore, the police collected the clothes of PW-3 which she was wearing when she had visited the hospital for medical examination. PW1 has stated in the cross-examination that she washed the clothes worn by her i.e. dupatta which was blood stained. 30. The prosecution has marked Ex.P.25, the FSL report with regard to the clothes of the accused as well as the victim and other articles collected during the course of investigation. As per Ex.P.25, the presence of seminal stains were not detected in the clothes and other articles. The said FSL report at Ex.P.25 is not at all helpful to the case of prosecution, as obviously, the clothes worn by the victim at the time of incident has not been collected and therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the presence of either seminal stains or blood stains on the clothes of the victim worn at the time of incident. In the absence of seizure of any clothes worn by the victim at the time of incident which is said to have been blood stained, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the clothes worn by the victim i.e., PW-3 was either blood stained or there was bleeding from her private part. 31. Both PW-1 and PW-3 have categorically stated that the accused gave some juice and thereafter, committed penetrative sexual assault. As already observed, PW-3 has stated that after drinking the juice she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness she was in the bed and therefore, she was not aware as to what happened. In the next breath, she has stated that the accused committed sexual intercourse on her. Hence, it is difficult to accept the version of PW-3 that the accused committed the offence as alleged. 32. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that though it is alleged that accused committed forcible penetrative sexual assault on PW3, who was aged only 14 years at the time of incident, there was no physical injury noticed at the time of her medical examination. 32. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that though it is alleged that accused committed forcible penetrative sexual assault on PW3, who was aged only 14 years at the time of incident, there was no physical injury noticed at the time of her medical examination. She was behaving in a natural and usual manner right from the date of alleged incident and therefore, he contends that if any such incident had taken place, certainly it would have come to the knowledge of her mother PW1. It is further contended that PW3 was attending her school regularly as a normal child and she has not reported the matter to any of her friends and therefore, he has contended that the said aspect also gives rise to a suspicion that no such incident has taken place and a false case was foisted against the appellant in view of the differences and dispute between the accused and PW1. 33. The above contention of the learned counsel cannot be brushed aside, as there is some force in the said contention. Admittedly, there is delay in reporting the matter to the Police. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 16.8.2016 and it is reported to the police on 6.10.2016. According to the prosecution, on 6.10.2016, there was a quarrel between the accused and PW1. PW1 has stated that on that day, the accused came to the house and stating that he is going to Goa asked her to give his clothes. She has further stated that he dragged the hands of victim girl and she started weeping. Accused went out and set fire to his motorcycle. Thereafter, the victim informed about the incident which took place on 16.8.2016. PW3 has also stated that on that day, the accused picked up quarrel with PW1 and set fire to his motorcycle. Thereafter, she informed the earlier incident. PW3 has further stated that her mother took her to the police station and lodged a complaint against the accused. In her evidence, PW3 has stated that she went along with her mother to the police station. However, she has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that when she had gone for tuition, she alone went to the police station and lodged the complaint and thereafter, the police informed her mother. In her evidence, PW3 has stated that she went along with her mother to the police station. However, she has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that when she had gone for tuition, she alone went to the police station and lodged the complaint and thereafter, the police informed her mother. It is not forthcoming as to what was the complaint lodged by PW3 or the information given to the police by her at the earliest point of time. 34. PW1 has deposed in her evidence that in the year 2008, her first husband deserted her and thereafter, she started living separately with her children. She has admitted that she had lodged a complaint against her first husband and a criminal case was registered against him. She has stated that from 2008 till 2015, the accused was residing with her. She has admitted that till then she did not lodge any complaint against the accused. She has further stated that she had taken a loan of Rs.1 lakh from Basaveshwara Society and gave it to the accused but the same was not returned by the accused and therefore she had requested the father of the accused to return the amount. She has admitted that a complaint was lodged against the father of accused and during the enquiry, police asked the father of accused to advise his son to return the amount of Rs.1 lakh to her. It is also elicited in her cross-examination that she had lodged a complaint to the police against one advocate by name Sanjay Chinnannavar. 35. PW3 in her cross-examination has admitted that her father deserted them and the accused was helping them financially by paying school fees as well as he was looking after the household expenses. She has stated that the accused suffered loss in the business and her mother gave Rs.1 lakh as hand loan to the accused and same was not returned though the accused assured that it will be returned within a year. She has stated the accused did not return that amount and also stopped helping them financially and therefore, her mother realized that the accused will not be of any help to them. 36. The prosecution has strongly relied upon the medical report at Exs.P8 and P9. She has stated the accused did not return that amount and also stopped helping them financially and therefore, her mother realized that the accused will not be of any help to them. 36. The prosecution has strongly relied upon the medical report at Exs.P8 and P9. It is contended by the prosecution that the findings of medical examination are suggestive that the girl is used to an act like that of sexual intercourse. Exs.P8 and P9 are issued by the Medical Officer, BIMS Hospital, Belagavi. The said documents are marked through PW4. A perusal of the evidence of PW4 goes to show that victim was examined by a Gynecologist, according to whom, her hymen was not intact. The said doctor has not been examined by the prosecution. PW4 has admitted that hymen can be torn for many reasons. He has further admitted that the FSL report is negative regarding commission of sexual act against the victim. 37. It is the case of prosecution that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl once i.e. on 16.8.2016. Hence, the opinion furnished in Ex.P9 to the effect that the victim was used to an act like that of sexual intercourse raises a doubt. According to PW4, as per the opinion of the Gynecologist, the victim’s hymen was torn. Hence, non-examination of the said doctor, who conducted medical examination of the victim has prejudiced the defence. 38. Learned HCGP has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay alias Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 191 to contend that the statement of the prosecutrix requires no corroboration, if found worthy of acceptance and conviction of the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is permissible. 39. Learned HCGP has placed reliance on another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ganesan Vs. State rep. by its Inspector of Police reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 839 to contend that as per preposition of law, there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the victim, who cannot be put on par as an accomplice. He therefore, contends that the sole testimony of PW3 is trustworthy and her evidence is supported by her mother PW1. 40. He therefore, contends that the sole testimony of PW3 is trustworthy and her evidence is supported by her mother PW1. 40. It is well settled that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. It is also well settled that while appreciating the evidence of witnesses, approach must be as to whether the evidence of witnesses as read as a whole appears to be true. 41. In the instant case, according to the prosecution, the incident has taken place on 16.8.2016. However, until 6.10.2016, there was no complaint lodged. For the first time, while giving evidence, both PW1 and 3 have introduced a new theory that the accused gave some juice and thereafter, committed penetrative sexual assault on PW3. PW3 has stated that after drinking the juice she did not know what happened and when she regained conscious, she was in the bedroom. Though it is alleged by the prosecution that her clothes were blood stained, the said clothes were not seized. PW3 has stated that she washed the clothes and the clothes which were seized by the police were one which she was wearing at the time of lodging the complaint. The FSL report does not support the prosecution case. In the background of dispute between accused and PW1, wherein specifically it is admitted by PW3 that on the date of lodging of the complaint i.e. on 6.10.2016, there was a quarrel between the accused and PW1, a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court regarding the allegation of sexual assault made by the accused on PW3. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that the accused was due a sum of Rs.1 lakh and in this regard, she complained to his father and also lodged a complaint against him. It is also admitted by her that she had lodged a complaint against her ex-husband as well as one advocate. 42. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raja and Others Vs. It is also admitted by her that she had lodged a complaint against her ex-husband as well as one advocate. 42. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raja and Others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2016) 10 SCC 506 at paragraph-24 has held as under: 24. This Court in Raju (supra), while reiterating that the evidence of the prosecutrix in cases of rape, molestation and other physical outrages is to be construed to be that of an injured witness so much so that no corroboration is necessary, ruled that an accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication. It was underlined that the testimony of the victim in such cases, though commands great weight but the same, cannot necessarily be universally and mechanically accepted to be free in all circumstances from embellishment and exaggeration. It was ruled that the presumption of absence of consent of the victim, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved as contemplated in Section 114-A of the Evidence Act, was extremely restricted in its application compared to the sweep and ambit of the presumption under Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. It was exposited that insofar as the allegation of rape is concerned, the evidence of the prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should always without exception, be taken as gospel truth. The essence of this verdict which has stood the test of time proclaims that though generally the testimony of a victim of rape or non-consensual physical assault ought to be accepted as true and unblemished, it would still be subject to judicial scrutiny lest a casual, routine and automatic acceptance thereof results in unwarranted conviction of the person charged. 43. In the case of Parminder Kaur alias P.P.Kaur alias Soni Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3815 , at paragraph 11, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: 11. Similarly, the five-day delay in registration of the FIR, in the facts and circumstances of the case, gains importance as the father of the victim is an eye-witness to a part of the occurrence. It is difficult to appreciate that a father would await a second incident to happen before moving the law into motion. Similarly, the five-day delay in registration of the FIR, in the facts and circumstances of the case, gains importance as the father of the victim is an eye-witness to a part of the occurrence. It is difficult to appreciate that a father would await a second incident to happen before moving the law into motion. Sweeping assumptions concerning delays in registration of FIRs for sexual offences, send a problematic signal to society and create opportunities for abuse by miscreants. Instead, the facts of each individual case and the behavior of the parties involved ought to be analysed by courts before reaching a conclusion on the reason and effect of delay in registration of FIR. In the facts of the present case, neither is Section 366A by itself a sexual offence in the strict sense nor do the inactions of the prosecutrix or her father inspire confidence on genuineness of the prosecution story. No steps were taken to avail of medical examination of the victim, nor was the panchayat or any social forum approached for any form of redress till the occurrence of the second alleged incident. 44. In the instant case, testimony of the victim and her mother PW1 does not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to hold accused guilty of the alleged offence. In view of the discussions made above, it cannot be said that the evidence of PW1 and 3 are reliable and trustworthy. The reasons assigned by the trial Court for convicting the accused on the basis of the evidence of PW1 and 3 is therefore, not sustainable in law. Having appreciated the entire evidence and material on record, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) Appeal is allowed. (b) The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19/20.12.2018 passed in SC No.14/2017, on the file of the Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Court under POCSO Act, 2012, Belagavi, convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, is hereby set- aside. (c) The accused/appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid offences and he shall be set at liberty if not required in any other case. (c) The accused/appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid offences and he shall be set at liberty if not required in any other case. (d) Fine amount, if any deposited, shall be refunded to the accused/appellant. (e) Operative portion of the judgment shall be communicated to the concerned jail authority for needful action. A copy of this order shall also be made available to the learned counsel for the appellant.