The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution in relying on a child witness and the importance of corroborating evidence in cases of sexual assault on minors.

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 08.01.2015 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.59/13 arising out of FIR No.60/13 registered at Police Station Sagarpur by which the appellant was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 10 POCSO Act, the present appeal has been preferred by him. By an order dated 16.01.2015, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that sometime in the Winter Session 2012-2013 at premises Chunmum Nursery School, RZ-74, Dabri Extension, New Delhi, the appellant committed aggravated sexual assault by showing his penis to the prosecutrix/child victim “X” (Assumed name) and by making her touch it.

3. On 18.03.2013, Rekha “X”s mother reported the incident to the police at Police Station, Sagar Pur. The Investigating Officer recorded “X” s statement in question-answer form (Ex.PW1/B) and lodged First Information Report. In her complaint “X” gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances, the appellant had asked her to touch his penis in the latrine/bathroom of the school. “X” was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.PW-1/A). The accused and his wife Minoti Das were arrested during investigation. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Certain documents were seized and taken on record. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both the appellant and Minoti Das in the court on 23.04.2013. It is relevant to note that by an order dated 06.01.2014, Minoti Das was ordered to be released as no case was made out against her. The State did not challenge the said release order. To prove its case against the appellant, the prosecution examined six witnesses in all. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. DW-1 (Narender Gola), DW-2 (Ms.Anita Soni), DW-3 (Nirmala Gahlot) and DW-4 (Smt.Minoti Das) appeared in defence. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty under Section 10 POCSO Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record minutely. Appellant’s counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Victim’s parents had failed to pay the fee and other dues of the school run by his wife in time and when they were scolded for default, the appellant was falsely implicated in this case. The prosecutrix, aged around five years, has given divergent and inconsistent statements. She is not clear if the incident had taken place “inside” or “outside” the latrine. It is not believable that in the presence of so many children outside the latrine in the school, the appellant would dare to exhibit such an abnormal behaviour. An “aaya” used to always accompany the kids to the toilet to assist them. DW-2 (Ms.Anita Soni) has supported on this aspect. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded after four days of the lodging of the FIR. The exact date of the incident has not surfaced. Defence version has been overlooked by the Trial Court for no cogent reasons. Refuting the contentions of the appellant’s counsel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that there are no sound reasons to disbelieve the prosecutrix, aged around five. She has fully supported the prosecution and despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing material could be extracted to disbelieve her.

5. Admitted position is that the appellant’s wife Minoti Das used to run a play school, namely, Chunmum Nursery School, RZ-74, at Dabri Extension on the ground floor. On the first floor, the appellant and his