The main legal point established is the reliance on the victim's testimony and corroborating events to convict the appellant under POCSO Act and IPC, despite the delay in lodging the FIR.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated 5th December, 2016 convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 10 of Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act') and Section 328 IPC and the order on sentence dated 8th December, 2016 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days for the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days for the offence punishable under Section 328 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no poisonous substance was found to be consumed by victim ‘C’ on her examination. The delay in lodging of FIR has not been explained. Sompal, the neighbour who called the police, has not been examined as a witness. As per the medical evidence also, hymen was found to be intact and no external injury was found, thus, not fortifying the prosecution case. There are contradictions in the testimony of victim ‘C’. Furthermore, FSL report does not support the prosecution case. Since the conviction of the appellant is on the solitary testimony of victim ‘C’ the same needs to be examined carefully in the light of surrounding circumstances. In the alternative, he further states that the present case is at best a case of sexual assault and not of aggravated sexual assault wherein the minimum punishment is 3 years imprisonment.

3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the present case squarely falls under Section 9 (n) of POCSO Act punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act. Delay in lodging of FIR was due to circumstances that the victim ‘C’ was at the mercy of the appellant who was staying in the same house, mother of victim having passed away, father of victim indulging in drinking and her younger brother aged only 4 years. FSL report does not support the prosecution case because the incident was reported after 4-5 days when the victim had already taken bath and had changed her clothes.

4. Process of law was set into motion on 24th May, 2014 around 9:07 A.M. when information was received with respect to commission of rape with a 12 year old girl by her chacha at K-Block Jahangir Puri in front of HP Gas godown. Aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No. 14A (Ex.PW-18/A) and was entrusted to W/SI Renu Bala (PW-18). She along with Ct. Rahul (PW-17) and W/Ct. Rajesh (PW-4) went to the spot i.e. Jhuggi, in front of DDA Flats, Metro Apartments. Victim ‘C’ was present there along with her father. She inquired from the victim about the incident. Thereafter, she along with victim, W/Ct. Rajesh and Ct. Rahul went to BJRM Hospital for medical examination of victim. W/SI Renu Bala called NGO officials for counseling of the victim, thereafter, victim was medically examined. After medical examination of the victim, the concerned Doctor handed over the sealed pullanda to W/Ct. Rajesh, which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. PW-4/A) by W/SI Renu Bala. Thereafter, statement of the victim was recorded vide Ex.PW-1/A.

5. The victim stated that she along with her father and brother stayed in a Jhuggi, at Jahangir Puri, Delhi. She did not go to school and her mother had passed away. Earlier they were staying at Shahbad Dairy and few days back they shifted to Jahangir Puri. She stated that her paternal uncle (chacha) used to stay with them and 4-5 days ago, her Chacha Wasim, appellant herein, offered her a tablet to eat. When she refused to consume the tablet, appellant gave a blow on the back of the victim with a danda. Thereafter, the victim took the tablet and threw it in the drain. While she was sleeping at night, the appellant took off her salwar and did wrong act. The victim woke up a