The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecutrix's testimony to be of sterling quality and unassailable in cases of sexual offences, and the need for consistency and truthfulness in the witness's statement.

JUDGMENT

Anuja Prabhudessai, J. - This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th October, 2019 in Special Case No. 211 of 2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge & Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai has convicted the Appellant for offences under Section 376(2)(f) and 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 (n) r/w. Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), and sentenced him to undergo

(i) rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and one of Rs.5000/-I.d. rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC;

(ii) rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.5000/- i.d. simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 5(n) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act; and

(iii) rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 506 of IPC.

2. The Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Accused) is the father of the prosecutrix (PW2). The prosecutrix along with her siblings, parents and grand parents was residing at Zore Chawl, Mahatma Kabir Road, Vile Parle, Mumbai. Some time in the year 2013, the prosecutrix was housed in Dongri Bal Sudhar Griha in connection with theft of a laptop. About a month later, the accused brought her home. Some days later, she ran away from home and was seen loitering at Kalyan Railway Station. She gave fake name to the police on duty at Kalyan Railway Station. She was produced before the Committee. She was sent to Bhivandi Bal Sudhar Griha (Childrens Home) and four months later, she was shifted to Dongri Bal Sudhar Griha.

3. In September, 2015, PW2 informed the Child Welfare Committee that the accused had subjected her to sexual abuse. Hence, by letter dated 08.09.2015, the Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee directed the police to record the statement of the prosecutrix. Accordingly, PW5- Madhavi Kadav recorded the statement of the prosecutrix (PW2) pursuant to which FIR came to be registered against the Accused for offences under Section 376 (1)(ii) , 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. PW5 referred the prosecutrix for medical examination, she conducted spot panchanama, arrested the accused and handed over further investigation to PW6- Sudhir Ghosalkar. PW6 requested the Magistrate to record the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He also referred the accused for medical examination and recorded the statement of the other witnesses and filed the charge sheet upon completion of investigation.

4. The Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined 6 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence of the accused was that of total denial. He has stated that the prosecutrix always used to run away from home. He objected to the same as he did not approve of the same. He claims that sometimes he used to beat her and hence she has lodged false complaint against him. The Accused has examined his wife as DW1.

5. After evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Judge has held that the evidence of the prosecutrix amply proves that the Accused herein had subjected her to rape. Hence, relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the learned Judge held the Accused guilty of offence under section 376(ii)(f) of the IPC and section 5(n) of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him as stated above. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.

6. Heard Shri Wagal, learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned APP for the State. I have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

7. It is well settled that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided the evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be worthy of credence and reliable and is of sterling quality. In Rai Sandeep vs. Sta