The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroborating evidence and the need for the prosecutrix's testimony to be unimpeachable and beyond reproach in cases of sexual offenses.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

Crl.M.A. 8057/2017 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

Crl.M.A. 7983/2017 (Condonation of Delay)

3. Although we do not find any sufficient ground to condone to delay, but since we have heard the leave to appeal on merits, delay of 166 days in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.

4. Application stands disposed of.

Crl. L.P. 287/2017

5. The present leave to appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.08.2016 passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case 44911/15 by virtue of which the respondent has been acquitted for charges under Sections 457/376(2)(i)/506/354/354-A/354-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (briefly the ‘IPC’) and Sections 6/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (briefly the ‘POCSO Act’).

6. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.07.2014, the prosecutrix (PW-4), aged about 9 years, was sleeping on the terrace of her house with her parents and siblings. In the middle of the night at about 2:30 AM, the respondent herein working in the embroidery factory of the father of the prosecutrix (PW-7), came near her, took off her undergarment and tried to insert his finger into her vagina. The prosecutrix (PW-4) woke up and cried; on which, the respondent went downstairs. The prosecutrix approached her mother (PW-6), who told her to go to sleep as the prosecutrix had to attend school on the next day. On the next day, the prosecutrix went to her school and on returning, disclosed the incident to her mother. The mother of the prosecutrix then reported the matter to the police and the respondent herein was arrested.

7. After hearing arguments, charges under Section 457/376(2)(i)/506/354/354-A/354-B IPC and Sections 6/10 POCSO Act were framed against respondent, to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all. Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the respondent denied all incriminating evidence and pleaded innocence. He further stated that he was working with the father of the prosecutrix and also residing in the same household; but as he had sought permission to leave his job owing to non-payment of dues, he was beaten and falsely implicated in the case. He had also alleged that the prosecutrix had been tutored by her parents.

9. After examining the evidence before it, the Trial Court acquitted the respondent. The Trial Court found improvements and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecutrix (PW-4), her mother (PW-6) and her father (PW-7), which were not supported by any other evidence. Further, the whole story put forth by the prosecution was found to be improbable. Aggrieved, the State has filed the present leave to appeal against the judgment.

10. Mr.Katyal, learned APP for the State, submits that the impugned judgment is manifestly wrong, illegal and against the facts on record and thus, warrants interference by this Court. It is submitted that the Trial Court has erred in blindly relying upon the testimony of the accused/respondent herein and has not placed any reliance upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the involvement of the respondent in the commission of the offence. The Trial Court had failed to consider that the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-4), her mother Smt.Rizwana (PW-6) and her father Mohd. Mujahid (PW-7) were consistent during the investigation and trial. It is also contended that the Trial Court has failed to consider the consistency in the statements of the child witness, i.e. the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had deposed in court in detail and all her statements were consistent, coherent and clear, thus, could have been made the basis of the conviction.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the State a