Delayed reporting and medical evidence, cumulatively creating reasonable doubt, warranted acquittal.

The prosecution alleged that on 14 December 2017 the appellant entered the informant’s house while her daughter was alone, gagged and slapped her, and raped her. The informant, who had been in a live-in relationship with the appellant, reported that he later assaulted her and poured hot oil on her leg. The FIR was lodged on 16 December 2017

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 323 and 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to fourteen years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine for the POCSO offence, with a concurrent six-month sentence for the IPC offence.

He appealed, disputing the reliability of the prosecution evidence and relying, among other matters, on the medical evidence and delay in lodging the FIR.

1. Whether the victim’s and informant’s evidence, assessed alongside the medical and other circumstances, proved the alleged sexual assault and the appellant’s guilt under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the circumstances surrounding its registration created reasonable doubt about the prosecution case

The charges concerned Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to rape; Section 323 IPC, relating to voluntarily causing hurt; and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, prescribing punishment for penetrative sexual assault.

The Court applied the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that a reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must be resolved in favour of the accused.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered the victim’s account together with the medical evidence, which disclosed no injury on her body or private parts and did not confirm rape.

It also noted that the FIR followed the informant’s burn injury, that the Investigating Officer’s explanation for the delay was inconsistent with his evidence about when the written report was received, and that the prosecution’s account that the victim had been sent to her aunt could not be verified by the Investigating Officer.

Considered alongside the evidence of the appellant’s relationship and business dealings with the informant, and the parties’ asserted reconciliation, these circumstances created reasonable doubt about the prosecution case.

It set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and directed his release from custody unless required in another case.