The main legal point established in the judgment is the careful evaluation of the evidence of child witnesses and the identification of the accused in the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The court emphasized the need for reliability and consistency in the testimonies of child witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - By way of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction recorded by the trial court vide judgment dated 27.04.2019 in FIR No. 104/14 registered under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act at P.S. Lodhi Colony whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

2. Subsequently, vide order dated 13.05.2019, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable Section 10 of the POCSO Act and in default thereof, to undergo SI for a period of six months. In view of Section 42 of the POSCO Act, the appellant was not sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC as the sentence in POSCO Act is higher.

3. While passing the impugned judgment, the trial court noted the brief facts as follows:-

"2. The FIR came to be registered on a written complaint dated 30.03.2014 (Ex.PW-3/B) lodged by the mother of victim ''E''. The mother stated in her complaint that on 12.03.2014, accused molested her daughter E (age around J years) and her friend ''A'' (age around 8 years) while they were playing in the common area near the lift on the 3rd Floor of their apartment. It is the case of the prosecution that both the victims were residing along with their family at the apartments in Pragati Vihar Hostel, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. On 12.03.2014, at around 07.30 PM, while these girls were playing with water-balloons, accused kept staring them from the 4th Floor of the apartment. He approached the girls and made physical contact & advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. The accused molested both the victims. He caught Baby ''E'' and put his hand inside her slacks and touched her private parts. The girl kept pleading that he should let her go but could not manage to free herself as he was holding her tightly. She somehow managed to free herself and ran towards her house. The accused also touched the girl ''A'' in inappropriate manner. The child felt uneasy and ran towards the house of her friend ''E''. It is the prosecution''s case that the complainant consoled the crying girls and thereafter, they narrated the entire episode to her. The parents of the girls made efforts to identify the man who misbehaved with their daughters but could not succeed. It was only on 30.03.2014 that the girls saw the accused in the locality and identified him as the person who molested them. It was found that accused was a Constable in CRPF and he was working in the same apartment as an Orderly at the House of Deputy Commandant, CRPF. The parents apprehended the accused and informed the police.

3. The prosecution''s case proceeds further that the information about the incident was received and recorded at Police Station Lodhi Colony as DD N0.22A (Ex.PW5/A). On receiving this information, SI Manoj Kumar (PW-6),Ct. Rajender (PW-7) and W/Ct. Nutan (PW-5) reached the spot where the complainant met them and handed over the written complaint. The police officials requested an NGO named Butterfly to send its representative for counseling the minor girls. Accused was arrested and medically examined. Statements of witnesses were recorded and the site plan was prepared. The statements of the victims were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the necessary documentation was done. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was put to the court."

4. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the trial court framed charges to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

CONTENTIONS

5. Mr. Siddharth Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment by contending that there has been a delay of 18 days in giving the complaint; that there is no eye witness to the incident; that no TIP was conducted; that the appellant was apprehended on false implication and wrong identification; that it was dark and no l