The testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence, can be relied upon to convict the accused person, and corroboration is not necessary unless medical evidence can be expected.

JUDGMENT :

Manmohan, J.

Present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant-convict challenging the judgment dated 17th July, 2019 and the order on sentence dated 20th July, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-01/Special Judge: POCSO Act (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 58825/2016 arising out of FIR No.1123/2015 registered with Police Station Mahendra Park, whereby the appellant-convict has been convicted under Section 376(2) IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376 (2) IPC.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The facts of the present case, as noted by the Trial Court, are reproduced here-in-below:-

"2. The facts in brief, which are borne out from the record are that in the year 2015, victim A, aged about 13 years, alongwith her family including her mother, two younger brothers and her father/accused, was residing in village Bhadola, Delhi. Her mother used to work in a factory, while her father accused used to work in Mandi. On 08.12.2015, when she returned back from her school she found her father/accused at home, while her mother was at her work and her younger brothers in school. Her father asked her to take her meal and go to sleep. When the victim went to her bed to sleep, accused/her father came to her and started fondling with her, pressed her breast and thereafter removed her legging and inserted his finger in her urinal part. The victim started crying, where-after the accused told her not to disclose about the incident to anyone. Again on 09.12.2015, when the victim came back from her school, the accused repeated the same incident. However, this time, the victim narrated the entire incident to her mother, after she returned back from her work, where-after a quarrel took place. On 11.12.2015, the victim called the Women Helpline number i.e. 1098, pursuant whereto an official from Women Helpline came to her house on 12.12.2015, who inquired from the victim and called the police at 100 number.

xxx xxx xxx

5. On appearance in the court, the accused was supplied with the copies, and after hearing the counsel for the accused and Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, since prima facie case was made out, the accused was charged for the offence u/s 6 POCSO Act and in alternative u/s 376(2)(f) IPC, on 06.02.2016 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, since the offence of penetrative sexual assault/rape, which was alleged to be committed by the accused, was covered under general law i.e. u/s 376 (2)(f) IPC as well as u/s 6 POCSO Act simultaneously and not in alternative, the charge was amended accordingly, and amended charge for the offence punishable u/s 6 POCSO Act and u/s 376(2)(f) IPC, was framed against the accused on 04.07.2019, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial....."

FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT

3. The Trial Court convicted the appellant-convict under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 376(2) IPC. The conclusion of the Trial Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"47. In view of my discussions above, it emerges that :

(i) on the day of incident, the victim was aged about 12 years and 8 months;

(ii) testimony of the material witnesses i.e. victim (PW1) and her mother (PW2) are reliable and trustworthy,

(iii) the medical evidence, corroborates the version of the victim that fingering was done in the vagina of the victim,

(iv) on 08.12.2015 and 09.12.2015, the accused started fondling with his daughter/victim, and then inserted his finger in her vagina repeatedly,

(v) the defence of the accused is a sham one, which do not inspire any confidence,

(vi) the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused.

48. Conclusion: In the light of my discussion above, the testimony of prosecution witnesses are found to be trustworthy and reliable, and the prosecution has succeeded in provin