The legal principle established is the reliability of child witness testimony in cases of traumatic events, emphasizing the competence of child witnesses and the lack of ulterior motive for false implication.

1. Amrit Sharma @ Amit impugns the judgment dated 27.09.2010 in Sessions Case No.1144/2009 by which he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 363/366/376 (2)(F) IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine. In brief the prosecution case is as under :

2. Daily Dairy (DD) No.3A (Ex.PW-1/B) was recorded at 12.45 (night) on 18.04.2009 at police station Shalimar Bagh on getting information from Const.Vikram that a girl aged 3 - 4 years lying unconscious near toilets, House No.52, Singalpur Village was admitted at Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital. The DD was marked to SI Hira Lal who with Const.Naresh Pal reached the hospital. The child was unfit to make statement. SI Hira Lal made endorsement (Ex.PW-8/C) over DD No.3A and sent the rukka for lodging First Information Report under Section 376 IPC. The Investigating Officer recorded Jagbir’s statement. He had informed the PCR about the child. Efforts were made to record the statement of the victim but in vain. SI Sushila Rana took photograph of the child on mobile and showed to various persons for identification. Smt.Shakuntala living in jhuggi No.101, AA-Block, Shalimar Bagh identified the photo to be that of her daughter ‘N’. SI Sushila Rana met Pooja, a friend of the victim and she informed that one rickshaw puller known ‘chor bhai’ had taken her with him. She further disclosed that the said rickshaw puller had offered biscuits and Rs. 10 to both of them. She declined to take the biscuits and rupee 10 note. ‘N’ accepted and went with him. On 21.04.2001, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., ‘N’ disclosed that ‘chor bhai’ had taken her in the rickshaw towards the forest and thereafter, committed rape on her. She elaborated that ‘chor bhai’ used to ply rickshaw and visit their ‘jhuggies’. On 25.04.2009, the accused was arrested from his jhuggi No.139-140, AA-Block, Shalimar Bagh. He was interrogated and he made disclosure statement. Accused’s underwear was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-12/G). He was medically examined. During the course of investigation, statement of the prosecutrix ‘N’ was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and report was collected. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts and after completion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant for committing the offence mentioned previously. The accused was duly charged and brought to trial.

3. In order to bring home the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution had examined twelve witnesses in all at the trial. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstance. He pleaded false implication at the behest of prosecutrix’s mother (Smt.Shakuntla Devi) to extort money from him. After appreciating the evidence and documents on record and taking into consideration the submissions of the parties, the Trial Court concluded that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the findings of the Trial Court urged that it did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimonies of PW-6 (N) and PW-11 (Pooja) without ensuring their capability to depose and identify the culprit. The prosecutrix and her friend Pooja were aged about 4-5 years on the day of occurrence, and it was improbable to recognise and identify the culprit in the Court after a gap of about one year. The learned Trial Court did not ask relevant questions to ascertain their ability to remember faces, susceptibility to suggestion, circumstances in which they made the identification and that they were in a position to give rationale answers. The appellant was not named in the FIR and the culprit was described by the victi