The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to establish a complete chain of events and circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and the obligation of the accused to provide a reasonable explanation for incriminating circumstances.

SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. It is stated that human lust knows no bounds-if there is any truth in it, the present case is a glaring example of such lust. In the present case a tiny tot aged about 2-1/2 years has become a victim of the lust of the appellant resulting in his conviction under sections 376(2)(f)/363/186/332/353 IPC in Sessions Case No. 85/2011 arising out of FIR No.29/10 PS Govind Puri and sentenced to undergo various prison terms.

2. Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet is that on 01.02.2010 at about 08.00 P.M. the appellant after kidnapping the prosecutrix ‘X’ (assumed name), a minor child, aged about 2 years sexually assaulted her. Police machinery came into motion when information about the incident was recorded vide Daily Diary (DD) No.20A at PS Govind Puri. The investigation was assigned to SI Ashok Giri who went to the spot. First Information was lodged on the statement of victim's mother - Ruby. She disclosed as to how and under what circumstances, 'X', her daughter was sexually assaulted by the appellant. During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. 'X' was medically examined. Accused was arrested. While apprehending the accused, he had hit HC Jagat Singh (PW7) by means of an iron rod due to which he suffered injuries. Medical examination of accused was also conducted. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him in the Court.

3. Charge for offence u/s. 363/376/186/332/353 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication without examining any witness in defence. The learned Trial Court on the basis of circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused for the offences u/s 363/376/186/332/353 IPC and sentenced him as under:-

(i) RI for 10 years and a fine of Rs.5000/- in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s 376(2)(f) of IPC.

(ii) RI for 1 year and a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo SI for one month for offence u/s 363 IPC.

(iii) RI for 1 month for offence u/s 186 IPC.

(iv) RI for 1 year for offence u/s 332 IPC.

(v) RI for 6 months for offence u/s 353 IPC.

All the sentences were to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was given to the convict. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, he has filed the instant appeal.

4. The learned Trial Court based the conviction of the accused on the following circumstances:-

(i) Evidence of last seen;

(ii) Recovery of prosecutrix from the possession of the accused; and

(iii) Medical evidence

5. Only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant challenging the legality and validity of impugned judgment is that same suffers from some contradiction. Rebutting the contention learned APP for the State submits that minor contradictions does not affect the substratum of the case. Prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt in proving the heinous crime committed upon two year child and when he was being apprehended, he also obstructed police official in discharge of his duties by hitting him with iron rod. Impugned judgment does not call for interference. Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have given anxious thoughts to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. Admittedly the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as the eyewitness to the incident is a minor girl aged about 2-1/2 years. As she was not in a position to speak so she was not made a witness in the case and therefore there is no direct evidence on record that any of the witnesses examin