Conviction based on the sole testimony of a child witness is permissible if the witness is found competent and the testimony is trustworthy. Seeking corroboration of a victim's statement before relying on it is adding insult to injury. The court should evaluate the testimony of a child witness carefully, considering the inherent bashfulness of females and the tendency to conceal sexual aggression.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction dated 23.03.2015 and order on sentence dated 25.03.2015 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in FIR No. 521/2013 registered under Sections 376(2)(f)/506/511 IPC and 6/18/8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Mangol Puri, Delhi.

2. The appellant was sentenced as under:-

(i) For the offence u/s 10 of POCSO Act, the convict Sudarshan Mishra is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, further SI for a period of 3 months;

(ii) For the offence u/s 6 r/w Section 18 of POCSO Act, the convict Sudarshan Mishra is sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further SI for a period of 6 months.

(iii) For the offence u/s 506 IPC, the convict Sudarshan Mishra is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years.

3. The brief facts as noted by the trial court are as under:-

"The facts of the case, as borne out from the record are that on 29.08.2013, at about 2.40 PM child victim K, alongwith her mother went to PS Mangolpuri with the complaint of repeated sexual harassment and sexual assault, committed against her by her own father, who is accused in this case. Considering the sensitivity of the matter, SHO, PS Mangolpuri summoned Smt.Radha Bhardwaj, Member of an NGO dealing in the welfare of children and asked her to counsel the child victim and her mother. After her counselling, the child victim made her statement to 10 SI Khusboo Yadav, wherein she stated that at that time, she was residing at house No.F-2/287, Mangolpuri, Delhi belonging to her maternal grandfather, however, about 10 days prior to the said date, she had been residing with the accused, her mother and two brothers in House No.G-29, Mangolpuri, Delhi. She was a student of class 8th. Her father after getting drunk used to sexually assault her by fondling with her private parts and after doing so, used to criminally intimidate her not to tell about the same to her mother, else he would liquidate her. Out of fear, she did not tell about all this to her mother. On 25.07.2013,her father came to her bed, de-robed her and started fondling with her private parts, when she tried to scream, he smothered her with a pillow and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. She bit his hand as a consequence whereof, her father left her. A week thereafter once again her father tried to commit similar act upon her, but in the meantime, her mother reached home and his father set aside himself. At that time, she told all the previous attempts of her father of sexual assault to her mother. Her mother tried to make her father understand not to repeat such acts, but in vain. Thereafter, she was taken to the PS by her mother.

4. After completing investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and on 10.02.2014, the trial court framed charges under Section 10 and 6 read with Section 18 of POCSO Act as well as under Section 506 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution in support of his case, examined 13 witnesses. The material witnesses who were examined were the child victim, her mother and maternal grandfather.

6. I have heard Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned APP for the State and have also gone through the trial court records.

7. The child victim was examined as PW-3. She testified that she was residing with her parents alongwith her two minor siblings. At the relevant time she was a student of 9th standard. She stated that the appellant (who is the father of the child victim), under the influence of alcohol used to touch her breast and private parts. He also used to threaten her to not to disclose of his acts to anyone. On 25.07.2013, the appellant came to her bed and started molesting her. He removed her clothes. She tried to call h