The main legal point established in the judgment is the precedence of oral evidence over medical evidence in cases of sexual assault, emphasizing the need for the victim's testimony to be trustworthy and of sterling quality.

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J.

Crl. L. P. 337/2018

1. By the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 09.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge-01, Special Court (POCSO) South East District, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi, whereby the respondent (accused before the Trial Court) was acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO').

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

"(i) That DD No. 39-A was registered at Police Station New Friends Colony on 21.05.2014, in receipt of the information that a minor girl, Baby 'A' aged about 9 years has been sexually assaulted, the said DD was marked to SI Seema(PW-6) and accordingly SI Seema along with ASI Shivraj arrived at the spot. The statement of the victim was recorded by SI Seema wherein she stated that on 21.05.2014, at about 12:00 pm, accused Shankar Kamat called her to his jhuggi, lifted her frock and sucked her breast. Consequently, she requested the accused to leave her, but despite her continuous requests the accused did not leave her and instructed her to not raise her voice.

(ii) Based on her statement recorded by SI Seema, FIR No. 212/14 was registered at Police Station New Friends Colony. During the course of investigation, the statement of the victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded on 22.05.2014 and the accused Shankar Kamat was arrested on 18.04.2015 vide arrest memo (Ex.PW6/4).

(iii) After the completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed and after committal, arguments on the point of charge were heard and charges U/s 8 of the POCSO Act 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."

3. To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses in all. Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the charges framed against him and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case. The respondent chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.

4. After hearing the counsels for both sides and on appreciation of entire evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused for the charged offences.

5. Mr. Tarang Srivastava learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the impugned judgment dated 09.03.2018 is based on conjectures, surmises and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the testimony of the prosecutrix in its right perspective ignoring the well-settled proposition of law that the sole testimony of the victim in the case of sexual assault is sufficient to base conviction of the accused.

6. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the learned Trial Court has placed undue weight age on the minor discrepancies in the testimony of the PW-1 (the victim) and PW-4(mother of the prosecutrix) contrary to which both the statements are consistent and corroborative in nature and there are no major omissions and contradictions in their testimonies. He further contended that the learned Trial Court had erred in disregarding the MLC of the victim, which categorically reveals that the victim was subjected to sexual assault. Counsel for the State has lastly urged that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case; hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of counsel for the State and also perused the material available on record.

8. Returning to the facts of the present case, the moot point involved for consideration in present leave petition is whether evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the testimony of the victim (PW-1) is trustworthy, credible and worthy of reliance.

9. From the perusal of th