The finding of guilt can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if it is cogent and reliable, and the testimony of a child witness must be carefully evaluated but can be relied upon if it inspires confidence and is not embellished.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present appeal is preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant Ishwer Soni challenging the judgment dated 30.07.2018 and order on sentence dated 31.07.2018 passed by the ASJ01, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in SC No. 74/2016 arising out of FIR No. 177/2016 registered under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Geeta Colony, Delhi whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Further, vide order on sentence dated 31.07.2018, the appellant was directed to undergo RI for a period of 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act along with payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for 2 months. He was further directed to undergo RI for a period of 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC alongwith payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for 2 months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

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

"Brief facts as per the case of the prosecution are that on 30.04.2016, DD No. 3A was marked to IO WSI Deepa (PW-6). Mother of the victim (PW-2) alongwith the victim (PW-1) came to PS Geeta Colony. IO made enquiries from the mother of the victim and recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A wherein she alleged that on 29.04.2016 at about 7.00 pm, the victim had gone to her grandmother''s (nani) house and while she was coming downstairs for returning to her home, one tenant namely Ishwar met her and took the victim to his room and sexually assaulted the victim by inserting his hand into her vagina and started licking and he did it many times and also pressed her breast due to which victim was sweating and on returning home, she narrated the entire incident to her mother (PW-2). Thereafter, as per the instructions of IO, WASI Amrik Kaur (PW-4) took the victim alongwith her mother to SDN hospital where medical examination of victim was conducted. MLC of the victim child was obtained. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka and present FIR was registered under Section 376 IPC & Section 6 of POCSO Act. Accused was arrested at the instance of victim. Thereafter, IO prepared site plan at the instance of victim and also got recorded the statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. verified the date of birth of victim etc."

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and vide order dated 07.02.2017, the trial court framed charges under Section 366A IPC & Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellant doubted the credibility of the child victim by referring to her statement where she had stated that the appellant had inserted his hand inside her vagina, however, at the time of the MLC, no injury or swelling was noticed. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is an apparent contradiction in the statements of the child victim as well as her mother. While the child victim deposed that the appellant has used his hand, her mother, on the other hand, stated that the appellant had inserted his fingers. It was next contended that the appellant was falsely implicated on account of monetary dispute between the appellant and the family of the child victim. In this regard, he referred to the suggestions given to the child victim, her mother, the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the testimony of Mr. Pritam Singh, who was examined as DW-1. As an alternative argument, though at the time of arguments it was submitted that even believing the testimony of the child victim, only a case of attempt is made out but in the written submissions it is contended that from the evidence available on the record, only offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act is made out.

5. In support of his submissions, Mr. Singhal referred t