JUDGMENT : (K. Suresh Reddy, J.) 1. Sole Accused in POCSO Sessions Case No.1 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of the Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under three (3) charges. First Charge was under Section 354-A (i) (iii) IPC, second charge was under Section 506 IPC and the last charge was under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act') 2. Substance of the charge is that on 8th March, 2013 at about 8.00 A.M., in the house of victim girl, aged about 12 years, the accused assaulted her with an intention to outrage her modesty and showed pornography against her Will and also criminally intimidated to pour acid and instigated her to fulfil his sexual desire and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 354 (i) (iii), 506 IPC and 12 of the POCSO Act. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari convicted the accused/appellant herein and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three (3) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months for the offence under Section 354-A (1) (i) IPC and further sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three (3) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused/appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. 4. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, briefly is as follows:- P.W.1 is father of the victim girl, who was examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 is resident of Kakinada and was studying first year Degree in Aditya Degree College, Kakinada at the time of the alleged incident. The appellant/accused is a cousin brother by courtesy to P.W.2., whom she had known since her childhood. P.W.2 is resident of Kakinada and was studying first year Degree in Aditya Degree College, Kakinada at the time of the alleged incident. The appellant/accused is a cousin brother by courtesy to P.W.2., whom she had known since her childhood. It is alleged that when P.W.2 entered 8th standard, the appellant/accused used to touch her private parts and tried to kiss her, thereby she felt humiliated and uncomfortable. Being unable to bear the harassment, she tried to commit suicide in the house of P.W.3, whose house she visited four (4) days prior to 20.8.2014, which fact came into the notice of the P.W.1 (father of the victim girl/P.W.2) after four (4) days through P.W.3. When P.W.2 and P.W.3 returned home, P.W.1 enquired P.W.2 about the sexual harassment, P.W.2 in turn informed him that the appellant/accused used to cause sexual harassment since her 8th standard. Then P.W.1 went to the office of the Superintendent of Police on 11.9.2014 and presented Ex.P1 written report. The Superintendent of Police, in turn, forwarded the said report to II Town Police Station, Kakinada. Ex.P2 is the endorsement of the Superintendent of Police. P.W.5, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Alamuru Police Station, who received Exs.P1 and P2 from P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.141 of 2014 under Sections 354-A (i) (iii) and 506 IPC besides Section 12 of the POCSO Act and issued Ex.P5 FIR to all the concerned. He examined P.Ws 1 and 2 and recorded their statements. During the course of examination, P.W.5 received documents from P.W.2 pertaining to her face book account and on 12.9.2014 at 9.00 A.M. he visited the house of P.W.1 and prepared Ex.P6 rough sketch in the presence of one Juveen Nishanth (L.W.3) and P.W.4. On 14.9.2014 he went to the house of P.W.3 and examined one K.Sreenivasa Babu (L.W.5). During the course of examination, P.W.3 produced a suicide note purportedly written by P.W.2, which is marked as Ex.P4. On 14.9.2014, he visited the house of the appellant/accused and arrested him and sent him to the judicial custody. On 20.9.2014 he visited Narayana College, Kakinada where P.W.2 studied and secured attested copy of her 10th Class Marks Certificate which is marked as Ex.P7 in proof of her age. After completion of investigation, P.W.5 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs. On 20.9.2014 he visited Narayana College, Kakinada where P.W.2 studied and secured attested copy of her 10th Class Marks Certificate which is marked as Ex.P7 in proof of her age. After completion of investigation, P.W.5 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 apart from Exs.X1 to X3. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. On behalf of defence, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D14 were marked. 7. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri D. Poorna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri Kochiri. Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. 8. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, at the outset vehemently argued that there is abnormal delay in lodging the Ex.P1 report. The alleged incident said to have been occurred on 08.3.2013, whereas the report about the incident was given on 10.9.2014 i.e., 18 months after the alleged incident. Therefore, according to him, the prosecution miserably failed to explain the cause for the alleged delay. 9. The learned Senior Counsel further contended about the conduct of the victim/P.W.2. According to the prosecution, the alleged incident occurred on 08.3.2013 and since then there was strained relationship between P.W.2 and the appellant/accused. But, curiously, it was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 that after the incident, she accompanied the appellant/accused to various places, such as vegetable market, Church etc., and also visited house of the appellant/accused for lunch. This factum also was proved through photographs, which were marked as Exs.D5 to D7. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, if at all the incident took place on 08.3.2013, P.W.2 might have informed to her father, who legitimately expect to present a report immediately without waiting for 18 months. 10. Further, the learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that the prosecution has come up with a version that on 08.3.2013 P.W.2 was alone in her house since P.W.1 took his son/L.W.3 (Nishanth) to drop him at his college for attending his intermediate examination and taking advantage of her loneliness, the appellant/accused tried to assault her modesty. 10. Further, the learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that the prosecution has come up with a version that on 08.3.2013 P.W.2 was alone in her house since P.W.1 took his son/L.W.3 (Nishanth) to drop him at his college for attending his intermediate examination and taking advantage of her loneliness, the appellant/accused tried to assault her modesty. In this connection, according to the learned Senior Counsel, it was established through D.W.2/ Principle of the College, where L.W.3 (Nishanth) allegedly appeared for Intermediate examination, that there was no such examination, in which L.W.3(Nishanth) appeared. Further, it was also established the above factum through Ex.X2-Timetable and Ex.X3-Attendance Register. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel strenuously argued that the prosecution has come up with a false theory. Moreover, P.W.2 clearly stated in her cross-examination that on the date of alleged incident, she did not have Geography examination for her and on 08.3.2013 is a holiday for her. But, the appellant/accused clearly established through the Head Master of the School (who was examined as D.W.2) that on 08.3.2013 P.W.2 attended her Geography Paper-II examination, which factum also proved through Ex.D14 Attendance Register. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, P.Ws 1 and 2 gave false versions before the Court below about the examination of the victim girl as well as her brother (L.W.3), which goes to show that only to create false scene of offence and loneliness of P.W.2, the prosecution has come up with the alleged theory. 11. Further, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the entire case of the prosecution revolves around the suicide letter purportedly written by P.W.2 which was noticed by P.W.3 in her house at Visakhapatnam. But, strangely, for the reasons best known to P.W.1, there was no mention about the suicide letter in the report given to the police at the earliest point of time, which shows that the suicide letter is a subsequent development to strengthen the case of the prosecution. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel prays this Court to allow the Criminal Appeal by acquitting the appellant/accused, since the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel prays this Court to allow the Criminal Appeal by acquitting the appellant/accused, since the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel and according to him, the learned Sessions judge has rightly come to a conclusion that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and rightly convicted the appellant/accused. 13. I have perused the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses on record. 14. It is not in dispute about the relationship between the parties. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, there was abnormal delay of 18 months in lodging Ex.P1 Report. According to the prosecution, the incident allegedly occurred on 08.3.2013, whereas the report was lodged before the Superintendent of Police on 10.9.2014. So, there was no proper explanation offered by the prosecution with regard to the abnormal delay of 18 months in lodging the report. 15. As per the prosecution, after the alleged incident, which occurred on 08.3.2013, there ensued a strained relationship between P.W.2 and the appellant/accused. But, P.W.2, in her cross examination, clearly admitted that after the alleged incident, she accompanied the appellant/accused to several places including vegetable market, church etc., which factum was proved through Ex.D-5 photograph and also attended the house of the appellant/accused for lunch. Further, P.W.2 admitted in her cross- examination that as per Ex.X-1 she appeared for her Geography examination on the alleged date of incident. So, it is crystal clear that if at all the incident occurred on 08.03.2013, one can legitimately expect that the victim should not accompany the accused to various places including his house to have a lunch. Therefore, the conduct of P.W.2 is a doubtful and not a trust worthy. Furthermore, according to the prosecution, on 08.3.2013, when P.W.1 took his son L.W.3 (Nishanth) to Intermediate Board Examination, taking advantage of the loneliness of P.W.2 in the house, the appellant/accused allegedly harassed her sexually. But, curiously, it was established through D.W.2 (Principal of the College) that there was no such Intermediate examination on that day. Furthermore, according to the prosecution, on 08.3.2013, when P.W.1 took his son L.W.3 (Nishanth) to Intermediate Board Examination, taking advantage of the loneliness of P.W.2 in the house, the appellant/accused allegedly harassed her sexually. But, curiously, it was established through D.W.2 (Principal of the College) that there was no such Intermediate examination on that day. Further, the prosecution came up with the version that on the alleged date of incident, P.W.2 did not have any Geography examination for herself and P.W.2 herself stated that 08.3.2013 itself is a holiday. Curiously, D.W.1 who is the Headmaster of the School categorically stated before the Court that on 08.3.2013 P.W.2 attended her Geography Paper-II Examination, which factum was also proved through Ex.D13-Time table and Ex.D14 Attendance Register. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that P.Ws 1 and 2 have come up with false version. 16. Moreover, the entire case of the prosecution revolves upon the alleged suicide letter purportedly written by P.W.2, which was noticed by P.W.3 in her house at Visakhapatnam. But, surprisingly it was not found place in Ex.P1 report lodged by P.W.1. Therefore, in the absence of reference of suicide note in the Ex.P1 report, it absolutely become a fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, P.Ws 1 to 3 have come up with different versions at different stages which creates a doubt over the genuineness of the allegations. On one hand, P.W.1 stated he went out of the house on 08.3.2013 in connection with his son's examination and on the other hand, P.W.2 stated that on 08.3.2013 is a holiday for her and she did not have any examination on that day. Hence, it can be safely relied that both the versions given by P.Ws 1 and 2 found to be false in view of the evidence of D.Ws 1 and 2. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.2 is not corroborated by any other independent witness. Therefore, in view of the inherent improbabilities in the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it is not safe to rely on the same to come to a conclusion that the accused committed the offence. Therefore, viewed from any angle and having scrutinised the evidence of the prosecution witnesses carefully, I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that their evidence do not inspire confidence of this Court. Therefore, viewed from any angle and having scrutinised the evidence of the prosecution witnesses carefully, I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that their evidence do not inspire confidence of this Court. All the above facts and circumstances indicate that the prosecution failed in proving the guilt of the accused/appellant herein beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he is entitled to be acquitted. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/ accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A (1) (i) and 12 of the POCSO Act, in the Judgment, dated 08.9.2016, in POCSO Sessions Case No.1 of 2015 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of the Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, at Rajahmundry are hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant/ accused is acquitted of all the charges and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him. 18. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.