JUDGMENT :

Hima Kohli, J.

1. The appellant has assailed the judgment and order on sentence dated 16.05.2018 and 19.05.2018 respectively passed by the Court of the learned ASJ-01/Special Judge, POCSO Act, North, Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 58941/16 arising from FIR No. 80/2016, registered at Police Station: Alipur under Section 377 IPC and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act'). In the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim, who is a minor boy aged 4 years, which is punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC. By the order on sentence dated 19.05.2018, observing that the punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is more stringent than the punishment prescribed under Section 377 IPC, the learned ASJ has awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 90 days.

2. The facts of the case as gathered from the record are that on 27.01.2016, SI Gajender Singh, who was posted at Police Station: Alipur, received a PCR call that one male person had committed a wrong act with a small boy at Teekri Khurd. The said information was recorded vide DD no. 12A and the case was marked to SI Gajender Singh for investigation. SI Gajender Singh accompanied by another police personnel went to the spot and found that the beat constable was already present there. The beat constable produced the appellant and on inquiry, SI Gajender Singh came to know that the appellant had sodomized a four year old boy. The name of the victim has been anonymized in the impugned judgment as A, that of his mother as Smt. U and of his father as Sh. K. On coming to know that the victim had already been taken to SRHC Hospital, SI Gajender Singh proceeded there and met his parents. The appellant was also present at the hospital. Smt. U pointed towards the appellant as the aggressor. Both, the victim and the appellant were got medically examined by the concerned doctor.

3. In the meantime, the I.O., W/SI Tejwati arrived at the hospital alongwith an official belonging to an NGO and took over the investigation. The statement of the victim's mother, Smt. U was recorded. She stated that she has two sons and the victim, A is her elder son. On 27.1.2016, at 3 PM, when she was sitting on the terrace and knitting, her son, A went to the room of the appellant situated in the same building for eating chicken rice. After some time, A rushed upstairs and told her that he was bleeding from the anus. On asking him how the bleeding had taken place, A informed her that the appellant had done something wrong with him. At this, the complainant raised a hue and cry and people from the locality gathered there. Arun Kumar, a distant relative of Smt. U, who was also residing in the same building, apprehended the appellant from a nearby shop and reported the matter to the police on phone. Based on her statement, the rukka was prepared and forwarded to the Police Station.

4. While at the hospital, the I.O. received a sealed pullanda of the exhibits of the appellant and the victim. The appellant was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. Thereafter, the police officers accompanied the appellant, the victim and his family members to the scene of the crime. At the instance of the appellant, one plastic mattress having blood stains and some yellowish liquid were found in his room and the relevant portion was cut out, placed in a plastic poly bag and seized. The I.O. prepared a site plan at the instance of the victim, duly witnessed by SI Gajender Singh. She also recorded the statement of the witnesses, including Arun Kumar, who had informed the police about the incident. On the basis of the rukka, an FIR