The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on testimonies, medical evidence, and the interpretation of legal provisions to determine the guilt of the accused in a case involving kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault.

JUDGMENT :

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

1. Present appeals No. 1212/2018 and No. 455/2019 are directed against common judgment dated 03.08.2018 and order on sentence dated 29.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, (POCSO ACT)/North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions case No. 06/2017 arising out of FIR No. 341/2016, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 10 POCSO Act registered at Police Station Karawal Nagar, Delhi whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 363 IPC and in default of payment of such fine for this offence, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Convict was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 10 POCSO Act and in default of payment of such fine for this offence, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned by the learned Trial Court are reproduced as under:

“Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 07.10.2016, on receipt of DD No. 76B, SI Abodh and Ct. Arvind went at the informed place i.e. Gali No.7, Mahalaxmi Vihar, Karawal Nagar and met complainant Asha Ram. Complainant gave a statement that on 07.10.2016 at about 09.00 p.m., she was cooking food and her daughter/victim, aged about 05 years, was playing in verandah. She further alleged that at that time, Somveer, whom she knew for last one year, had come to her house. After sometime, she noticed that victim was missing. She suspected that Somveer had taken her daughter. On these allegation, FIR u/s 363 IPC was registered.

During the investigation, victim was recovered and it was found that victim had been raped. Thereafter, victim was medically examined. Her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused was arrested.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 363/376/506 IPC and under Section 4 POCSO Act was filed against accused. On 01.02.2017, charges under sections 363/366/376 (2) (i) IPC and u/s 6 POCSO Act were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in all. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he pleaded his innocence by denying all the incriminating circumstances and claimed to have been falsely implicated by prosecution. Accused examined only one witness in his defence.

5. Ms. Neelam Sharma learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that the impugned judgment dated 03.08.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court was perfunctory in nature, full of conjectures and surmises, ignoring the well-settled proposition of law that the sole testimony of the victim of a sexual offence is sufficient to base conviction of the accused. She further contended that the impugned judgment is full of legal defects and the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the testimony of the prosecutrix in its correct perspective, and therefore is liable to be set aside.

6. She further contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of the incident and her statement was consistent, cogent and there are no major omissions and contradictions in her testimony.

7. She submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of PW-4 (Vikas Kumar) who had witnessed the accused taking the victim with him. She further submitted that the Trail Court failed to appreciate the testimon