Corroboration of the victim's testimony by her parents played a crucial role in establishing the conviction under Section 451 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. Chander Shekhar @ Chandu challenges the impugned judgment dated 9th May, 2016 convicting him for offences punishable under Section 451 IPC and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and the order on sentence dated 12th May, 2016 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 451 IPC.

2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a dispute with respect to the place of incident. As per the DD entry, the incident took place at Sai International School which is near the house of the victim. However, as per the testimony of the victim, the place of incident changed to her house. The chappal recovered from the house of the victim which was alleged to be of the appellant was not proved as neither the same was sealed nor produced nor proved to be belonging to the appellant. There are contradictions with respect to the time of incident as per the rukka and testimonies of mother and father of the victim. Further, even as per the prosecution case, the door was bolted from inside. No investigation was conducted to verify as to how the appellant opened it from outside. There are contradictions as to the time when the parents of the victim left for the hospital.

3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand clarified that the place of incident is the house of the victim as per the DD entry and the testimony of the various witnesses. With respect to the difference in the time of incident, learned APP submits that it was due to the fact that cross examination took place after a period of 2 years from the date of incident. Further, since the age of the victim stands proved by the testimony of PW-1, Section 8 of POCSO Act is attracted. The testimony of the victim is corroborated by the testimony of the mother of victim. Minor contradictions, if any, are not fatal to the prosecution case. The mother of victim calls the father of the victim who immediately send PW-8 Jihad completes the chain of the prosecution case. Thus, the appellant has been rightly convicted.

4. Process of law was set into motion on the receipt of DD No. 16A Ex.PW4/A on 16th April, 2014 at 1:32 P.M. stating that a girl was molested at Sonia Vihar, 5th Pusta, Block G-5, near Sai International School at the house of OP. The aforesaid entry was assigned to PW-5 HC Manoj who went to the spot where he met the victim and her mother. Statement of the victim was recorded wherein she stated that on 16th April, 2014, she was alone at home as her father and mother had gone to Gandhi Nagar Hospital at 6:00 A.M. After finishing the work, when she was sitting inside after latching the door, Chandu, who stays in the neighbourhood, opened the latch, came inside the house and started molesting her. He held her hands and gagged her mouth and took her inside. She tried to rescue but he did not leave her. In the meantime, her mother came and started beating him, however, he pushed her and fled away. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR No. 163/2014 was registered under Sections 354/452 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act at PS Sonia Vihar. On the same day around 5:00 P.M., PW-10 SI Yogesh Kumar went to the house of the victim and seized the chappal of Chandu which he had left there. On pointing out by the victim, he prepared the site plan of the place of incident. Around 9:30 P.M., Chandu was arrested by SI Yogesh Kumar. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and charge was framed against the appellant.

5. PW-1 Kishore Kumar, Sub- Registrar, Birth and Death, City zone, NDMC, proved the date of birth of the victim as 9th April, 1997 vide entry in the record Ex. PW-1/A.

6. The victim who was examined as PW-2 in the Court depos