The main legal point established in the judgment is the evaluation of witness testimonies, the assessment of contradictory defenses, and the application of the benefit of doubt principle in cases involving alleged sexual assault.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant Rahim challenging the judgment on conviction dated 25.10.2019 and order on sentence dated 30.10.2019 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ASJ-05 (Central)/THC, Delhi, in SC No. 27269/16 arising out of FIR No. 87/2014 registered under Sections 323/354 IPC & Section 8 of the POCSO Act, at Police Station Kamla Market, Delhi whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323/354 IPC & Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Further, vide order on sentence dated 30.10.2019, the appellant was directed to undergo RI for a period of 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act along with payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- in default thereof, to undergo SI for 6 months. He was further directed to undergo RI for a period of 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC along with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- in default thereof, to undergo SI for 3 months.

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

"Brief facts of the case, as borne out from the charge-sheet are that on 10.03.2014 at about 05.30 p.m. when minor victim/complainant ''S'' (name withheld to protect her identity) aged about 17 was coming from her work place and reached at a circle near public toilet, accused came out from the said toilet and followed her. It is further stated that she changed her way and accused asked her to stop but she did not stop. The victim further stated that when she reached near the circle of the road for crossing the road, accused caught hold of her hand and when she shouted and tried to get rid of accused, accused slapped her. The victim further stated that accused also caressed (touched) her chest at the said place at that time. It is further alleged that at the time of incident, accused had covered his face with a cloth and were wearing black goggles and cap. The victim further stated that two persons came on motorcycle and caught the accused who fought with them as well. He was taken to the Police Station. The witness further stated that she made complaint Ex.PW6/A to the police and pointed out the place of incident to the Police".

3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the charges were framed against the appellant. The trial court framed the charges under Sections 323/354 IPC & Section 8 of the POCSO Act vide order dated 12.05.2014. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the MLC placed on the record in fact, did not belong to the child victim as her signatures on the MLC differ from the signatures appearing on other documents i.e., the complaint and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He also contended that the defence taken by the appellant was not properly appreciated by the trial court. Lastly, it was contended that the child victim has substantially improved her statement while deposing before the Court as compared to her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that all the material witnesses have consistently stated about the incident.

MATERIAL WITNESSES

6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sunny Kumar (PW-1) & Anmol Ratan (PW-2) respectively who were the passersby. The child victim ''S'' was examined as PW-6 and the mother of the child victim ''M'' was examined as PW-8. To prove the age of the child victim, the prosecution examined Gourav Batra, Sub-Registrar, Birth & Death, City Zone, Delhi as PW-3. The MLC of the child victim and the appellant were proved by Dr. Aishwarya Kapur (PW-5) & Dr. Nitin (PW-10). W/ASI Pushaplata, the first Investigating Officer was examined as PW-12 and W/Inspector Veena Kumari, who took over the investigation o