The trustworthiness of a child witness's testimony, competency of child witnesses, and the lack of necessity for corroboration in cases involving child witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Malhotra, J.

The appellant namely Rinku @ Ram Prasad, vide the present appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 22.03.2019 and the impugned order on sentence dated 23.03.2019 of the learned ASJ-01, North West, Rohini, Delhi (Special Court POCSO) in Sessions Case no.44/2017 vide which the appellant herein was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act, 2012) and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of the payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of the payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, with it having been directed that both the sentences would run concurrently.

2. The Trial Court Record was requisitioned, has been received and has been perused.

3. The nominal roll received from the Superintendent Jail-04, Tihar, Delhi indicates that on the date 19.08.2019, the appellant herein had undergone a period of 2 years 9 months and 21 days of incarceration with a period of 24 days of remission with the unexpired portion of the sentence being 7 years 1 month and 15 days in the event of having remaining unpaid, which in the instant case has apparently not been paid. The jail conduct of the appellant has been reported to be satisfactory.

4. The appellant in the instant case as indicated vide the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court has been identified by the victim C aged 5 years as being the person who had on 23.10.2016 forcibly taken her towards the bushes and then he inserted his "peshab wali jagah" in her "peshab wali jagah" and on her screaming, he had run away and the minor child victim C also identified the appellant as being the person known as Janu ka chacha (Rinku) who had lifted her and taken her towards the bushes, where he had removed his under wear and the minor child's under wear and then inserted his penis into her vagina and she thus, screamed out of pain and then that boy had run away. The factum of the commission of the aggravated penetrative sexual assault in terms of Section 5 of the POCSO Act, 2012 having been inflicted on the victim C, has not been disputed by the appellant and the same is also clearly brought forth through the MLC of the minor victim C dated 23.10.2016 which shows the hymen torn the orifice being 0.25x0.25 cm, though the child was not allowing proper examination.

5. The mother Smt. P of the victim C examined as PW-4 had stated in her testimony on oath before the learned Trial Court that on 23.10.2016 at about 7.00 PM, she was cooking food and the victim C was watching television in the house sitting beside her and after a few minutes, the child had gone to play with the children in the gali and after some time a girl named N came to her i.e. Smt. P and informed that something had happened to the minor child victim C and she was bleeding from her thighs, then the mother Smt. P of the minor child victim C rushed immediately with N and reached at the corner of the gali where she found her daughter i.e. C standing and she was bleeding from her thighs and thus, she i.e. Smt. P took her back to the house and checked her internal parts of the body after removing her underwear and she found that the blood was oozing from her private part and on inquiry, the minor child victim C told her mother Smt. P that one boy who lives in the area took her in the jungle and committed "wrong act" and later on, the minor child victim C told the name of that person was Jaanu ka Chacha, i.e. Rinku and further informe