The credibility of witness testimony and the burden of proof on the accused under Section 29 of the POCSO Act were central to the Court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 07.10.2016, whereby he was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter ‘POCSO Act’). He also impugns an order dated 08.10.2016, whereby he was sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for committing an offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act – an aggravated penetrative sexual assault. It was further directed that on failure to pay the fine, he would go simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

2. The appellant was prosecuted pursuant to registration of an FIR bearing no. 150/2013, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered with PS Karawal Nagar. The said FIR was registered at the instance of the victim’s mother (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’). On completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused Kalicharan for offences punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. By an order dated 03.12.2013, the Trial Court framed a charge against the accused Kalicharan for committing an offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused Kalicharan pleaded guilty and was tried for committing the said offence.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant’s sister had made a PCR call at about 11:45 a.m. on 13.03.2013 for reporting the offence. The said call was received and entered as DD No.14A at PS Karawal Nagar. She had reported that at the given address, one man had done a wrong act with a two year old child. At the material time, HC Ramesh Kumar (who was examined as PW2) was on duty as a Duty Officer at PS Karawal Nagar. He testified that he had received the call regarding sexual assault on a two year old girl and had recorded the same as DD No.14A. He further testified that he had handed over the said DD to ASI Yogesh Tyagi for taking the necessary action. ASI Yogesh Tyagi was examined as PW4. He confirmed that he had received DD No.14A (Ex.PW2/A) on 13.03.2013. He further testified that on receipt of the said DD, he along with Ct. Rohtash went to the spot (H No. B-187, Gali No. 6, Shiv Vihar, Ambika Vihar, Delhi) and on reaching the spot, he found that the victim had already been taken to GTB Hospital by the PCR. He stated that he along with Ct. Rohtash went to GTB Hospital and found that the victim (a two year old girl) was admitted there. He stated that he met the parents of the victim at the hospital and collected the MLC. Thereafter, he gave information to the Duty Officer. He collected a sealed parcel from GTB Hospital containing the victim’s samples and thereafter, he along with the victim and her parents came back to the spot. He testified that he met SI Monika at the spot and handed over the parcel to her and thereafter, SI Monika recorded the complainant’s statement (Ex.PW1/A).

4. In her statement (Ex.PW1/A), the complainant stated that she along with her husband and family reside at the given address. She stated that she has two children, a boy aged seven years and a girl aged two years (the victim in this case). She stated that her husband works at a hotel in Kalkaji. She alleged that on 13.03.2013 at about 07:30 a.m., she was in her room making tea. Her husband was also present in the room and her daughter was playing outside. When she did not return for about thirty/forty five minutes (aadhe pone ghante), she went out to fetch her but did not find her anywhere outside. Thereafter, she went to the terrace to look for her and there she found that her landlord’s son (who was aged about four to five years) was standing facing the latrine. She stated that she went towards the latrine and found that the landlord’s paternal uncle (the appellant herein) was inside without any clothes and he had inserted his penis in her daughter’s (the victim’s) mouth. Her daughter was struggling (chat