The admissibility of uncorroborated testimony of a child victim in cases of sexual assault, the evaluation of the testimony's credibility and reliability, and the classification of 'aggravated penetrative sexual assault' under Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act for victims below 12 years of age.

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 10.12.2018 in FIR No. 82/2018 registered under Sections 376/506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act at P.S. Sector-23, Dwarka whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act.

2. Subsequently, vide order dated 14.12.2018, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years along with payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The trial court also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the child victim under Section 357A Cr.P.C.

3. Briefly, the trial court noted the following facts in the impugned judgment: -

"2. The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of DD No. 19A dated 20.03.2018, ASI Gajraj Singh alongwith HC Ramakant went to the house of the prosecutrix and was told by the mother of the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix had been subjected to sexual assault. The above information was conveyed by ASI Gajraj Singh to the police station vide DD No. 20A. Pursuant thereto, SI Saroj Bala (I0) along with Constable Manisha also reached the spot. SI Saroj Bala recorded the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix, wherein she stated that the prosecutrix, who appeared to be upset for 2-3 days, had told her that on 18.03.2018, when she had gone to the house of accused Sanju Gharai to call his son for playing, the accused took her to the bathroom, inserted his penis into her vagina and anus and threatened that if she would disclose about the incident to anyone, he would kill her. On the basis of the above statement, FIR under Sections 376/506 IPC and 6 POCSO Act was registered. The prosecutrix was medically examined and her vaginal and anal swabs and other samples were seized. The accused was arrested on 20.03.2018. He was also medically examined and his blood sample was seized. On 21.03.2018, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein she reiterated the contents of the FIR. The samples of the prosecutrix and the accused were sent to the forensic laboratory for examination......"

4. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. The trial court, vide order dated 06.07.2018, framed charges against the appellant for commission of the offence punishable under Section 6 read with Section 5(l) and (m) of the POCSO Act and in the alternative, under Section 376(2)(i) and (n) IPC and Section 506 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution in support of its case examined a total of 9 witnesses. The child victim was examined as PW-4. The mother of the child victim was examined as PW-5. The age of the child victim was proved through the Vice Principal (PW-1) of the concerned school. Dr. Harsha Rajpal (PW-2) proved the MLC of the child victim. SI Saroj Bala who took the child victim to the hospital for her medical examination was examined as PW-7.

CONTENTIONS

6. Ms. Rakhi Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant contended that that the trial court committed an error while convicting the appellant on the basis of sole testimony of the child victim which neither inspired confidence nor was consistent with her MLC. Further, the FIR was registered after a delay of two days. Lastly, she contended that the appellant was falsely implicated as there was a prior quarrel between the mother of the child victim and the appellant''s wife.

7. Per contra, Ms. Radhika Kolluru, learned APP for the State supported the impugned judgment. She submitted that the testimony of the child victim was consistent, cogent and reliable. She also submitted that the testimony of child victim stood corroborated by the scientific evi