INTHE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM (For the trial of cases relating to Atrocities & Sexual Violence against Women and Children) PRESENT: Sti. KSoman, Addl. District & Sessions Judge Saturday, the 17" day of June, 2023/ 27" Jyaishta 1945 ‘Sessions Case No. 1318 of 2021 Crime Branch Crime No.280/CB/EKMIR/21 Complainat State of Kerala represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police ~ I Crime Branch, Emakulam, By Special Public Prosecutor Smt. P.A. Bindhu Accused Monson M.C. @ Monson Mavunkal, aged 53/2021, S/o. M.L.Chacko, Mavunkal House, CMC-26, Cherthala P.O., Cherthala Villagi Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha District, Now residing on rent in the house of ‘Smt.Binu Baburaj, Pranavam, VLRA-15 A, Vattapparambu Lane, Kaloor P.O., Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. By Advs. M.G.Sreejith, Luke J. Chirayil, P.Jaya, Rajin Devassy, Elsa Mary Thomas, Amal Jose, Bibas C.Babu & Joseph Marvel No RonshaOffences Plea of the accused Finding Sentence or Order, Uls. 5 @) (i), (), (p) r/w.6, 9 (), (p) rlw.t0, 11 (il) 1hW.12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sec.370 (4), 342, 354 A (1) (il) .354 A (2), 376 (2) (0, 376 (2) (n), 313, 506 (i) of Indian Penal Code. Not guilty The accused is found guilly of the offences punishable wi. 5 () (i, (), (p) /¥6, 9 (), (p) 1hv.10, 11 (iii) 1'w.12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sec.370 (4), 342, 354 A (1) (ill) r/w.354 A (2), 376 (2) (f), 376 (2) (n), 313, 506 (i) of Indian Penal Code and he is convicted thereunder. The convict is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for the offence u/s. 5 (j) (i) 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences3 Act, 2012. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. For the offence u's. 9 (!) tiw.10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 the convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and pay a fine of Rs 50,000/- (Rupees Filly thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months. The convict is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) for the offence ls (p} 11.10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months, He is further sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and pay a fine of Rs.25,000- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) for the offence is.11 (ii) w.12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In default of payment of fine, the convit shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months. For the offence u/s.370 (4) of Indian Penal Code the covict is sentenced to undergo Figorous imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years and pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fitty thousand only). in default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. The covict is again sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) ‘year for the offence u/s.342 of Indian Penal Code. Further, the convict is sentenced to5 undergo imprisonment for life which shall ‘mean remainder of his natural life and pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh nly) for the offence u/s.376 (2) (f) of Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. The conviet is also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life which shall mean remainder of his natural life and pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh only) for the offence s.376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. For the offence uls.313 of Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period fof 10 (ten) years and pay a fine of s.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). Indefault of payment of fine, the convict she undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six months. For the offence u/s.506 (i) of Indian, Penal Code the convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year. The sentence shall run concurrently. After the fine amount is realised shall be Paid to PW.1 as compensation u/s. 357 (1) Cr-P.C. Set oft is allowed. Description of the accused Sl Name of the Police Station Name/s Father's Occupation No. and Grime No.of the offence Name Crime No. Monson M.C.@ M.L.Chacko - 2B0/CB/EKM/RI21 of Crime Monson Branch Mavunkal Residence ‘Age Occurrence Date of Apprehension Complaint Mavunkal House, CMC-26, 53/2021 From 18.10.2021 06.11.2021 Cherthala P.O., 25.07.2019 Cherthala Village, til 11.01.2020 Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha District, Now residing on rent in the house of Smt.Binu Baburaj,Pranavam, VLRA-15 A, Vattapparambu Lane, Kaloor P.O., Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Emakulam District. Release on Bail Commital Commencement Close of ial Sentence or of Trial Order Custody Nil 03.06.2022 13.06.2023 17.06.2023 Service of copy of Judgment or finding on accused 17.06.2023 Explanation for delay No delay ‘The Sessions case coming on for hearing before me, upon perusing the Tecords of evidence and proceeding and upon duly considering the same after ‘nearing the Public Prosecutor and Counsel for the accused on 13.06.2023, |1do adjudge and deliver the following, JUDGMENT This is a case charge sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police - Ml, Crime Branch, Emakulam in crime No.280/CB/EKMIR/19 (Emakulam Town North Police Station Crime No. 1319121) of Crime Branch, Emakulam alleging offences wis. 5 (p), (0), (i) (i Hw, 9 (D, (p) riw.t0, 11 (ii) riw.t2 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sec.370 (1) (a),8 342, 354 A (1) (i), 354 A (2), 376 (3), 376 (2) (), (n), 313 and 506 (i) of Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the prosecution the mother of the victim gir aged 17 years and her brother were employees under the accused. They were residing ina house in Survey No.966/1 of Kumbalangi Vilage and it was a dilapidated Condition. Taking advantage of the miserable condition of the family of the ‘victim girl, the accused offered to reconstruct their house and to help the victim Girl to continue her studies. It was ‘fepresented by the accused that he is a Cosmetology doctor and he offered to teach cosmetology to the victim gi along with her studies. Accordingly the victim girl was deputed as an employee under the accused to assist the mother. The accused has not reconstructed the house of the victim gin as offered. I is alleged that on 25.07.2019 at about 6.00 ‘pm in the bed room situated on the south west side of the first floor of the house by name ‘Pranavam’ with house No. VRLA-I5A and 64/40240 (Old 37/2721) in Vattepparambu Lane of Elamkulam Vilage, Kaloor Kara the accused has shown obscene pictures to the victim in his iPad and with sexual inont touched her body. Subsequently on 26.07.2019 at about 4.00 pm the ‘sccused called the tin othe Same room and when she reached there the ‘cused locked the room irom inside, Therealer he has commited rape on the9 Vietim girl In the south-eastern room in the first floor of the same house the accused has threatened the victim with dire consequences of losing the job of hher mother and brother and also to eject them from the house if this incident is disclosed to anybody. After two days, she was again raped by the accused in the same room and it was repeated on subsequent occasions. On a day in ‘October 2019 at the same place the accused has conducted the pregnancy ‘test of the victim using preg test card and it was positive. He has unlawlully terminated the pregnancy of the victim by administering tablet to the victim ‘misrepresenting that it is a vitamin tablet, Another tablet has inserted into her vagina for the above purpose. The above mentioned sexual abuse was repeated by the accused til she attained majority on 11.01.2020. Thereby the accused has committed the above mentioned offences. 3 The accused is in judicial custody and he was represented by the lawyer engaged by him. He was {urished with copies of prosecution records after the final report is filed, On hearing both sides and perusing the prosecution records a charge wis. 5 () (i), (0), (p)rv.6, 9 (0), (p)rfm.10, 11 (i) riw.12 of the Protection of Children trom Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and ‘Sec.370 (4), 342, 354 A (1) (il) w.954 A (2), 376 (2) (0), 376 (2) (n), 313,10 506 (i) of Indian Penal Code was framed, read over and explained fo the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trie. 4. PWs.1 to 22 were examined on the side of the prosecution and marked Exts.P1 to P23. M.O.1 also was marked. 5. Aller the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned w/s. 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. and he denied all the incriminating evidence adduced against him. He pleaded innocence. He fled a writen statement to the effect that itis a false case and PW.1 has not visited his house or institution. The allegation that she was working under the accused since 2019 is false. The victim had no cease before the Crime Branch while she was earlier questioned in the cheating cease against the accused that she was sexually abused by the accused. The accused was a motivation speaker in schools, Police Stations, Churches and temples till he was arrested in 2021 in a cheating case. The accused has no criminal antecedents and he has no company with criminals. This case was falsely created at the instance of the rivals of the accused. The prosecution evidence especially the statement of PW.1 are contradictory. 6. After hearing both sides and perusing the prosecution evidence | did not find any reason to acquit the accused u/s.232 Cr.P.C and therefore thei accused was called upon to adduce defence evidence if any, DW.1 was ‘examined and Ext.D1 to D12 were marked on the side of the accused, 7. Heard both sides. 8. The points that arise for determination are:- Whether the accused is guilly of repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault on PW.1 aged 17 years as alleged ? 2. Whether the accused is guilty of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on PW.1 aged 17 years while he was in a position of ‘rust and authority of PW.t as alleged ? 3. Whether the accused is guilty of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on PW.1 aged 17 years and thereby causing her to be pregnant as alleged ? 4 Whether the accused is guily of repeated aggravated sexual assault on PW.1 aged 17 years as alleged ? ‘Whether the accused is guilty of aggravated sexual assault on PWA1 aged 17 years while he was in a position of trust and authority of PW.1 as alleged ? Whether the accused is guilly of sexual harassment by ‘showing obscene pictures to PW.1 aged 17 years as alleged ? Whether the accused is guily of trafficking PW.1 aged 17 years by harbouring her for the purpose of sexually exploiting her using fraud, misrepresentation and inducement as alleged ?R 8. Whether the aocused is guity of wronglul confinement of PYy aged 17 years as alleged ? Whether the accused is guily of sexual harassment b showing obscene pictures to PW.1 aged 17 years against het will as alleged ? 10. Whether the accused is guily of repeated commission of rape on PW. as alleged 7 11. Whether the accused is guity of rape on PW.1 aged 17 years while she was working as an employee and assistant under him as alleged ? 12. Whether the accused is guilly of causing miscarriage of PW.1 as alleged ? 13, Whether the accused is guilty of criminal intimidation against PW.1 as alleged ? 14. If so, whatis the punishment to be awarded to the accused ? 9. Point Nos.t to 13 :- For the sake of convenience all these points are being discussed together. This case was originally registered by Ernakulam Town North police on 19.10.2021 at 00.46 hours on the basis of the F.LStalement given by the victim gil examined inthis case as PW.1. She had Given her F.1.Statement before PW.13 the Senior Civil Police Oficer from Emakulam Town Noth Police Station premises on 18.10.2021. The F.lStatement was marked as Ex.P2 and it was signed by PW.1 as well as2aaa————_ 13 pW.19. Ex.P2 runs in three pages and the time of recording Ext.P2 was given inthe beginning as 10.00 pm. Therefore Itcan be presumed that the recording was stared at 10,00 pm and there is no evidence 10 show as to when exactly the recording was completed. PW.13 deposed that she was working as Senior civil Poe Oficer in Emakulam Vanitha Police Station which is also situated in the North Police Station premises and she was on night GD charge duty 0n 48.10.2001. At that time she was instructed by the Station House Officer of Ermakulam Town North potce station to record the statement of Pw.1 as there was no woman potice officers available in the Town North Police Station. Therefore she has taken the victim gt to Vanitha police station premises and trom there Ext.P2 was recorded in the presence of the sisterinaw of Pw. “The statement was road over to PW.1 and thereafter both of them have signed init After gating the statement signed PW.13 entrusted the statement f0 the Station House Officer of Emakulam Town North Police Station. 10. PW.20 was the Station House Otticer of Emakulam Town North Police Station on 18.10.2021. He deposed that at about 10.00 pm on that day PW1 appeared before him and as instructed by him PW.13 recorded the FuLStatement of PW.1 which was marked as ExL.P2, After examining the statement given by PW.1 ho has registered ExtP17 F.LR as crimeM4 No.1319/2021 of Emakulam Town North Police Station. Thereafter the victim was sent for medical examination to General Hospital, Emakkulam and steps were taken to get the statement of the victim recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C. The investigation was handed over to the Special Investigation Team as per the order of the higher officials. It was argued by the leamed counsel for the accused that there was inordinate delay in registering the F.LR after recording ExtP2 statement at 10.00 pm on 18.10.2021. It is alleged that the police officials and the victim were bargaining with the accused and finally the F.LR was registered, As already stated, the recording of F.1.Statement was started at 10.00 pm and there is no evidence to show when exactly it was completed. As slated by PW.13, she has read over the statement recorded to PW.1 and thereafter it was signed by both. Then she entrusted the statement to PW.20. Aller reading the statement to ascertain the offences allegedly committed or Cisclosed from the statement PW.20 registered ExL.P17 FLA. It may also take lime to ascertain the offences allegedly commited for recording the same in the F.LR. Therefore I do not find anything unusual in registering Ext 17 FLA in the same day night at 00.46 hours on 19.10.2021. The learned counsel for the accused also pointed out about column No.3 in Ex.P17 that the period of Sceurrence was stated as from 01.07.2019 til 01.10.2021. It isto be noted that15 these are all some clerical work relying on Ext.P2 statement and no importance can be given to such dates. At the same time Ex.P17 shows that the time at which the offences were reported to the police was shown as 10.00 pm on 18.10.2021 11. In Ext.P2 PW1 stated that her father is a carpenter and her mother is @ maid servant in the house of the accused. Her brother is married and Fesiding separately. Her mother is working under the accused for the last 9 Years. She has studied upto plus two and occasionally she visited the house of {he accused along with her mother. By this time the accused listened PW.1 and she was offered by the accused that he would help her for future studies and Support her for bright future. Believing the words of the accused, for the Purpose of continuing her studies and for other reasons she started residing in the house of the accused from July 2019. In fact, the accused, having understood the financial constraints and other difficulties in the house of PW.1 from her mother, was exploiting the pathetic situation in the family of PW.1 so as to make her to reside in his house by inducing her mother. Thereby she has started her studies by residing in the house of the accused. She was asked to attend some domestic works in the house of the accused. During this time the accused frequently called PW.1 to his room stating that he would teach16 cosmetology to her. In his room, with sexual intent the accused had shown ‘obscene photos in iPad to PW.1 and at that lime he had touched her body and kissed her. Due to fear, during that time she did not resist the act of the accused. During intial days she was abused by the accused in his house at Vyloppilli Lane which was used as his office and residence. Subsequently the accused has shifted his residence to guest house in Asramam Lane opposite {0 the earlier house in Vyloppilli Lane. The accused wanted PW.1 also to be shifted to the guest house in Asramam Lane as his assistant. From there also she was sexually abused by the accused at his room. She had no other go but {0 suffer the sexual abuse of the accused. Subsequently the accused was arrested in a cheating case in September 2021 and two days prior to his arrest also she was sexually abused by the accused. The accused was exploiting the faith and belief reposed upon him by PW.1 and her family. One Jishnu working ‘as Manager of the accused was compelling her mother to permit PW.1 to reside permanently in the house of the accused. Having believed the accused her mother conceded to the demand of the Manager. But her family members were not aware of the sexual abuse committed and continued by the accused towards her. Due to the continuous sexual abuse PW.1 became pregnant. In order to abort the pregnancy the accused administered pills to her and it was%, 7 aborted, Even after the abortion the accused continued his sexual abuse. Due to the difference of opinion with other staff under the accused she resigned from her job under the accused in April. There was no habit of giving salary to PW.1 by the accused. However, considering the financial constraints in her family PW.1 continued with the accused suffering sexual exploitation by the accused. On the basis of these allegations PW.20 registered Ext.P17 F.LR. 12. In Ext.P2 the age of PW.1 was stated as 19 years. However the offences under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for the alleged aggravated penetrative sexual assault and sexual assault were included in Ext.P17 F.LR by PW.20 because tho alleged incident was started from July 2019 onwards. In order to attract the offences under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. the prosecution has to allege and prove that PW.1 was a child u/s.2 (4) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at the time of the alleged incident. Sec.2 (d) of the POCSO Aot says that a “child” means any person below the age of 18 years. While giving oral evidence as PW.1 she deposed that her date of birth is 11.01.2002. PW.2 the mother of PW.1 also stated in the same manner. That means, the victim reached 18 years of age only on 11.01.202018 13, There is no provision in the Protection of Children trom Sexual Offences Act, 2012 or in any other law as to the mode of proof of the age of Victims of a crime. In darnail Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 3467 the Apex Court has considered this aspect with reference to Fuule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 framed under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and held that, “even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only 10 determine the age of a child in contlct with law, we are of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even for a child who is a victim of crime”. The same view was taken by the Apex Court in Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 14 SCC 637 and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh (2015) 7 SCC 77 also. 14, The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 has been repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015. Sec.94 (2) of the said Act deals with the evidence that can be relied on by the Child Welfare Committee or the Juvenile Justice Board for ascertaining the age of a child in conflict with law. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Jarnail Singh and other decisions mentioned above, the evidence or documents mentioned in Sec.94 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and19 Protection of Children) Act 2015 has to be relied on by this court for ascertaining the age of PW.1. In Sofikul Islam v. State of Kerala, 2022 (7) KHC 252 the Hon'ble High Court has held that “Itis relevant (0 note that under 5.94 of the wl Act of 2015, a marked departure is made from the erstwhile Statute and not only the certificate from the schoo! but a date of bith certificate trom the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concemed examination Board is also acceptable as proof of age. The WW Act of 2015 does not mandate that a certiate from the school ist atended is required. With effect trom 01.01.2016, proof of age is to be determined in the event of a dispute by relying upon the date of bith certificate from the schoo! or the matriculation OF the equivalent certificate from the examination Board as the fist step, Only in the absence of the above documents, the age can be determined by reference to the birth certticate of the local authority. The decisions in Alex v. State of Kerala, 2021 (4) KLT 480 and Rajan v. State of Kerala, 2021 (4) KLT 274, therefore, have no application as they both related to incidents prior to the coming into force of the JJ Act of 2015" 48. In this case, apart from the oral testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 regarding the date of birth of PW.1, the prosecution has relied on the birth20 is the Registrar of Birth and Death of Maradu Municipality examined to prov, Ext.P13. He deposed that Ext.P13 was issued to the police on the basis of the entries made in the birth register maintained in their office. On perusal of Ext.P13 it can be seen that the date of birth of PW.1 is 11.01.2002 and the name of the parents of PW.1 also have been shown there. It was issued in form No.7 following the provisions of Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 and the Rules made thereunder. In Harpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, “Entry made by the concemed official in the discharge of his official duties, that it is therefore clearly admissible under $.35 of the Inaian Evidence Act and that is not necessary for the prosecution to examine its author’. 16. Subsequently, at the request of the prosecution PW.1 was recalled to produce and prove her Secondary School Leaving Certificate. Though this order was challenged by the accused before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in CrLM.C.No.3511/2023 it was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter PW.1 was recalled and copy of her Secondary School Leaving Certificate was marked as Ext.P29. She has produced the original certificate also and it was returned after comparing with the copy. On perusal of Ext.P29 it can be seen that the date of birth of PW.1 is shown as 11.01.2002.21 17. Infact PW.1 has a case that she happened to go to the house of the accused for continuing her studies while she failed in few subjects in her plus wo examination. Ext.P29 further shows that PW.1 has passed her 10° standard in March 2017. That means, she could complete her plus two course by March 2019. According to PW.1 she joined with the accused and started residing there to pursue her studies and for employment since July 2019. So, the result in Plus two examination of the year 2019 might have published by that time. This is relevant because the period of plus two studies of PW.1 and the date when exactly PW.1 joined with the accused after her plus two course were disputed by the accused based on the oral evidence of PW.2 that PW.1 joined with the accused on 01.07.2018. The year mentioned by PW.2 can only be treated as incorrect or a mistake in view of the discussion made above. 18. As referred earlier, prosecution has a case that she joined with the accused in July 2019 and the sexual exploitation suffered by her trom the accused from 25.07.2019. In view of the above mentioned documents and oral evidence given by PWs.1, 2 and PW.15 | hold that the prosecution has succeeded in proving thal PW.1 was a child uls.2 (d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at the alleged incident happened in the year 2019.2 19. As already mentioned, in Exl.P2 PW.1 has explained the reason for re the the delay in reporting the matter to the police. While she experienced the sexval abuse from the accused, she stated that she had no other go bul fo suffer the sexual exploitation of the accused. Her mother was a domestic servant of the accused for the last 9 years and she was having faith in the accused. Finally, PW.1 stated in Exi.P2 thal she had to suffer these atrocities due to the financial constraints in her family. PW.1 was taken to Judicial First Class Magistrate on 19.10.2021 for recording her statement w/s.164 Cr.P.C. Before the learned Magistrate also PW.1 has stated that she was threatened by the accused to cause death of herself and her family members if it is disclosed to anybody. She has also stated before the learned Magistrate that she did not disclose it to the Crime Branch while she was interrogated earlier in connection with cheating cases of the accused as the gangster and manager of the accused were with her. 20. The main contention taken by the accused is that the victim had given statement to the Crime Branch in connection with the cheating cases registered against the accused and at that time she had no complaint of any senval abuse by the accused. PW.1 has admitted in the box that she has not stated anything to the Crime Branch officers at that time. It is to be noted that cf2B the question involved in such cases are related to alleged cheating of the accused against the complainants therein. The accused himself has stated in his statement u/s.313 (5) Cr.P.C that he was involved in cheating cases in the year 2021 and those disputes are civil in nature. Normally the interrogation of the police to the witness and recording her statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. would be relating to the facts connected with the offences alleged in a case under investigation. Naturally the question of sexual abuse does not arise in the questions of the Investigating Oificers in a cheating case between the accused and the third parties. Therefore the omission of the victim to disclose it to the Crime Branch Officials while she was interrogated in the cheating case cannot be a reason to discard her allegations of sexual abuse. Moreover, she has stated that she was not able to disclose such thing as the gundas and manager of the accused were present with her while giving statement to the Crime Branch officials. In the box also PW.1 has narrated the fact that she did not disclose it having atraid of the gundas and other male staff members of the ‘accused available in the place of occurrence. Some of them were examined in this case as witnesses and they have also admitted that they were working as the securily staff of the accused. PW.1 stated that she has found such statf carrying guns. It is admitted by the accused in his statement wis.313 (5)24 Cr.P.C that when this case was registered he was in judicial custody in connection with cheating cases. His arrest was in the last week of September 2021. Therefore, PW.1 stated that she got courage to disclose it and accordingly it was disclosed to her sister-in-law and family members on 17.10.2021 and on the next day, on 18.10.2021 it was reported to the police through Ext.P2, 21. In Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 155 the Apex Court held thal, “mere delay in lodging of the report may not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but the delay has to be considered in the background of the facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the court of fact’. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny AIR 2017 SC 835 the Apex Court has found the delay of three years in lodging F.I.R in case of sexual offence as inconsequential. In State of Rajasthan V.Narayan, AIR 1992 SC 2004, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “True itis that the complaint was lodged two days later but as stated earlier Indian society being what it is the victims of ‘such a crime ordinarily consult relatives and are hesitant to approach the police since it involves the question of morality and chastity of a married woman. A