JUDGMENT :

C. Hari Shankar, J.

The appellant Lokesh stands convicted, by judgment dated 29th May, 2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as "the learned ASJ") under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act") and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"), and sentenced, vide the consequential order, dated 4th June, 2015, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fine of Rs. 7500/-, with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment, for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. The case, as set out by the prosecution, may be adumbrated thus.

3. On 28th December, 2013, the complainant Guddi, arrived at the Police Station, with her daughter, the prosecutrix, about 4 years of age, and tendered her statement, on the basis whereof prosecution was lodged against the present appellant. According to the said statement, (i) on 5th November, 2013, at about 2 p.m., Guddi, along with the prosecutrix and her 9-year-old son, had gone to the Rama Market, Munirka, to meet the appellant, who worked at a cycle shop, the occasion being that of "Bhai Duj", (ii) after performing the ceremony, the appellant told her that his mother had invited them to his house, (iii) she, i.e. Guddi, along with her son, proceeded to the house of the appellant, at Kakrola Vihar, where he resided with his mother, (iv) the appellant, however, reached his house, accompanied by the prosecutrix only at about 10 p.m., (v) as the prosecutrix appeared distressed, she asked her what had happened, whereupon the prosecutrix informed her that the appellant had taken her to a jungle, removed her clothes, inserted something in her vagina (referred to, by her, as "susu" which, in the context, may be taken to be a euphemism for "genitals") and, thereafter, inserted his susu in her anus, (vi) the prosecutrix further disclosed, to her mother, that, as the act had caused her severe pain, she started crying, whereupon the appellant beat her and threatened to kill her mother and brother, if she were to disclose, to her mother what had happened, and (vii) on removing the underwear of the prosecutrix, she found bloodstains in her pelvic region, which was also swollen. She further stated that, as she was apprehensive, she did not disclose what had happened to anybody and got her daughter, i.e. the prosecutrix, treated privately; however, when she did not recover, and the pain continued, she informed her relatives, who encouraged her to report the matter to the Police.

4. On the aforesaid complaint of Guddi, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered, under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

5. Investigations were carried out by Sub-Inspector (SI) Dhara Mishra, who also got the medical examination of the prosecutrix conducted at the Safdarjung Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "the Hospital"), and obtained her exhibits. The appellant was arrested, and he, allegedly, pointed out the scene of incident, near the Underpass, from where he had proceeded on his cycle, carrying the prosecutrix. Site plan was prepared at his instance, and the medical examination of the appellant was also done at the Hospital.

6. The prosecutrix was, thereafter, produced before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), where she was counselled. Her age verification was undertaken and the relevant documents were verified, by which her date of birth was asserted as 11th April, 2009.

7. The exhibits were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).

8. Consequent to completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed, by the I/O, in the Court, on 17th January, 2014, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Sections 4, 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act. Charge was framed, against the appellant, under the said provisions, on 25th April, 2014. The appellant pleaded not guilty and sought trial.

Evidence

9. The prosecution examined 10 witnesse