The central legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of a child victim can be credible and reliable, and can form the basis for conviction in cases of sexual assault, especially when corroborated by scientific evidence.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present appeal is preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant Rohit challenging the judgment on conviction dated 12.02.2020 and order on sentence dated 15.02.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, in SC No. 28233/2016 arising out of FIR No. 616/2015 under Sections 376 IPC & 6 of POCSO Act registered at Police Station I.P. Estate whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and under Section 376 IPC. Further, vide order on sentence dated 15.02.2020, the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act alongwith payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- in default thereof, to undergo SI for six months. In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the appellant was not sentenced under Section 376 IPC as the punishment provided under the POCSO Act is higher.

2. The brief facts as noted by the Trial Court are as under:-

"Law was set into motion upon the written complaint of the victim dated 28.09.2015 (Ex. PW2/A) wherein complainant/victim (prosecutrix in this case has been referred as victim ''M'' in order to protect her identity) stated that on 28.09.2015 at 2-3 p.m. when she was on study leave and studying for social examination at her house, the accused called her to meet him, however, she replied that she would not come as she was studying but accused insisted her to come to his room for five minutes. The victim went to room of the accused and accused bolted the door from inside and laid her on the bed and forcibly removed her nikkar and gagged her mouth. After removing the nikkar of victim, accused did "galat harkaten i.e. inserted his penis into her vagina and had sex with her for 5-10 minutes. In the meantime mother of the victim came there and on hearing her mother''s voice, accused released the victim. Victim had narrated the incident to her mother. In the meantime, father of the victim also came there and mother of the victim narrated whole incident to him. A 100 number call was made to police and police came at the spot and apprehended the accused. On the statement of victim, FIR u/sec. 376 & 6 POCSO Act was registered."

3. During investigation, the medical examination of the child victim as well as the appellant was done and the requisite samples were taken and sent to the FSL. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Section 376 IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO Act. Later, on receipt of the FSL report dated 01.02.2018, a supplementary charge-sheet was also filed.

4. The trial court framed the charges under Section 6 of POCSO Act and under Section 376 IPC vide order dated 04.02.2016. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined a total of 14 witnesses. The child victim was examined as PW-8, the mother of the child victim Smt. ''M'' was examined as PW-13 and the father of the child victim Mr. ''J'' was examined as PW-10, Dr. Preeti Yadav who proved the MLC of the victim was examined as PW-12, Ct Sanjeev was examined as PW-7, W/Ct Shakuntala who recorded the statement of the child victim and took her for medical examination was examined as PW-2 and the investigating officer SI Mohit Malik was examined as PW-14.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no eye witness of the incident and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case on account of his love affair with the niece of the father of the child victim. It is further contended that at the time of the MLC, no bleeding or physical injury was observed on the private parts of the victim and in support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decisions in Kailash Laxman Khamkar v State of Maharashtra, (2010) CriLJ 3255 as well as the decision in Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat v State of Maharashtra, (2005) AIR SC 643 . He also contended that the testimony of the child victi