The trustworthy and reliable evidence of the prosecutrix, corroborated by medical evidence, can be the basis of conviction in cases of sexual ofences against children.

JUDGMENT

N.R. Borkar, J . - This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the Special Court for Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences act, Greater Bombay in POCSO Case No. 437 of 2014. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant, who was accused before the trial court, has been convicted for the ofence punishable under section 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1850 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to sufer life imprisonment. The appellant/accused has been further convicted for the ofence punishable under section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO act') and sentenced to sufer life imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2] It is the case of the prosecution that during the relevant period, the complainant Seemavati (PW-2) was residing with her husband (accused), her daughter (the prosecutrix aged about 10 years), her son (PW-4) aged about 11 years and one more daughter aged about 7 years at annabhau Sathe Nagar, Haunmant Chawl, Mankhurd, Mumbai. PW-2 was working as Sweeper in the ofce at Navi Mumbai. The son (PW-4) was studying and staying in the hostel at Gandhi Dham in State of Gujarat.

3] according to the prosecution, on 13.06.2014, PW-2 had gone to Gujarat to drop her son (PW-4) at his hostel and came back on 15.06.2014. During the said period, the accused, the prosecutrix and the younger daughter of PW-2 were at home. according to the prosecution, during the said period the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix.

4] according to the prosecution, the prosecutrix disclosed about the alleged incident to PW-2 on 04.08.2014. PW-2 then lodged the report with Mankhurd Police Station.

5] On the basis of said report, crime vide Crime No. 215 of 2014 was registered for the ofences punishable under section 376 (2)(f) of the IPC and section 6 of the POCSO act against the accused. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the said ofences.

6] The accused was charged and tried for the abovesaid ofences. The trial court, by the impugned judgement and order, convicted the accused.

7] We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and learned aPP for the respondent / State.

8] The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that there is a delay in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that according to the prosecutrix (PW-1), she narrated the incident to her mother (PW-2) whereas according to PW-2, the prosecutrix (PW-1) never narrated the incident to her. He submits that according to the prosecution, the alleged incident took place in absence of PW-2 on 15.06.2014, however, the evidence of PW-2 would show that she was in Mumbai on 15.06.2014.

9] It is further submitted that the evidence would show that there used to be frequent quarrels between PW-2 and the accused and therefore, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.

10] It is further submitted that admittedly, the prosecutrix on the date of incident was aged about 10 years and therefore, the possibility of tutoring her cannot be ruled out. It is submitted that the trial court lost sight of all these facts and committed an error in convicting the appellant/accused for the alleged ofences. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and order thus needs to be set aside and the appellant/accused needs to be acquitted of the alleged charges.

11] On the other hand, the learned aPP for the respondent / State submits that admittedly, the appellant/accused is the father of the prosecutrix and thus it is unlikely that she would make false allegation against her own father. It is submitted that there is no material on record to infer that the prosecutrix was tutored either by PW-2 or anybody else. It is submitted that the medical evidence is also consistent with the prosecution case. It is submitted that considering the facts and circumstances, the trial court was justified in convicting the appellant/ac