The quality and consistency of the victim's testimony are crucial in cases of sexual offences, and the sole testimony of a witness must be of sterling quality to convict the accused.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 22nd March, 2016, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The appellant also impugns an order dated 23rd March, 2016, whereby the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. It was further directed that in default of payment of such fine, the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days.

2. The nominal roll indicates that the appellant has already served almost six years and nine months of his prison sentence.

3. The appellant was prosecuted pursuant to registration of an FIR bearing no. 750/2014 under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The said FIR was registered on 11th June, 2014 at the instance of the mother of the victim - a girl aged about nine years. The victim''s mother had stated that her husband had noticed that she was walking awkwardly (paro ko thoda kholkar chal rahi thi). On his inquiring the reasons for walking in that manner, the victim told him that the accused (appellant herein), who lived in the neighborhood had for the past four days paying her Rs. 10/- daily and calling her to his house. She stated that, thereafter, the accused would to take her to the bathroom where he would make her lie down after removing her pajama and insert his finger in a private part from where she urinates. She stated that this would result in her feeling pain and she would start crying. The accused had threatened her not to narrate the incidents to anyone. The victim''s mother stated that on hearing the above, the victim''s father went to the house of the appellant (accused) and they both quarreled. Thereafter, the victim''s father called 100 and reported the incident.

4. The victim was medically examined on 11thJune, 2014 and the MLC indicates that the external genitalia of the victim was found reddened and inflamed. The labia was found inflamed and there were red marks/abrasions on the outer perineal area. However, there were no lacerations and the hymen was found intact.

5. On 12th June 2014, the statements of the victim and her mother were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC.

6. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined the victim as PW-1. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that the accused had taken her to the bathroom of his house. He had then taken off her clothes as well as his. He laid with her and thereafter, inserted his finger in her urinary part. The prosecution also examined the mother of the victim, who deposed as PW-2. However, she did not support the case of the prosecution and denied giving any statement to the police. Since she had resiled from her earlier statement, the additional PP had sought and was granted permission to crossexamine her. In her cross-examination, she confirmed that her statement (Ex.PW-2/A) bore her signatures. She also admitted that her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC (Ex.PW-2/B) was signed by her.

7. The victim''s father was examined as PW-3. He also did not support the case of the prosecution. He denied that the victim had disclosed to him anything about any sexual assault on her. He stated that the victim had gone to the shop in the neighborhood to buy a packet of Surf and the son of the accused and the victim had quarreled. He was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution and he denied the suggestions made on behalf of the prosecution. He stated that the victim does not stick to the facts narrated by her but keeps giving different versions. According to him, she was not subjected to any sexual assault.

8. Notwithstanding that the parents of the victim had turned hostile, the Trial Court convicted the appellant on the basis of the statements of the victim. The Trial Court reasoned that a child could not be expected to give minute