The quality of evidence is crucial, and a child witness can be competent if able to understand questions and give rational answers.

JUDGMENT :

(Via Video Conferencing)

1. By way of the present appeal, filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the appellant has assailed the judgment on conviction dated 01.11.2019 and order on sentence dated 25.11.2019 passed in Sessions Case No. 58126/2016 arising out of FIR No. 428/2013 registered under Section 10 of the POCSO Act at P.S. Shahbad Dairy, passed by the learned ASJ-06, Special Court, POCSO, North, Rohini Court, Delhi whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years along with payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo SI for 1 month.

2. For the sake of felicity, the brief facts as noted by the Trial Court, are reproduced below:-

“The accused was chargesheeted for commission of offences of aggravated penetrated sexual assault on the victim S (identity not disclosed as S is a child victim who was aged about 6 Yrs. at the time of offence). In brief, the allegations against the accused are that on 23.08.2013, G, the mother of the victim S returned to her home in the evening and S told her that the accused had committed wrong act (penetrative sexual assault) with her (S) in the day time. G narrated the incident to her father in law B. The next day, matter was reported to the police and investigation was set into motion after registration of FIR.”

The Trial Court vide order dated 07.12.2013 had framed charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 material witnesses. The child victim was examined as PW1. Ms. ‘G’, the mother of the child victim, was examined as PW2. Mr. ‘BS’, the grandfather of the child victim was examined as PW3. Dr. Nitika Gupta and Dr. Sidharth, who proved the MLC of the child victim, were examined as PW5 and PW12 respectively. Mr. Charanjeet Singh, MM, who proved the statement of Ms. ‘G’, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was examined as PW13. Ms. Rachna Lakhanpal, MM, who proved the statement of the child victim, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was examined as PW14. The other witnesses were official witnesses cited in relation to various steps taken during the investigation.

CONTENTIONS

4. Ms. Richa Dhawan, learned counsel for the appellant, has assailed the impugned judgment by contending:

(i) that the testimony of the child victim was vague, lacking in material particulars and uncorroborated as even though the incident was stated to have occurred in broad daylight but no independent witness was examined.

(ii) that the MLC of the child victim did not support the case of the prosecution as the concerned Doctor did not state as to whether the bleeding noticed in her medical examination was old or new.

(iii) that no blood was found on the clothes of the child victim in the Forensic examination.

(iv) that no judicial TIP was conducted and that the appellant was already shown to the child victim.

(v) that the appellant was falsely implicated on account of construction of a washroom in front of the house of the complainant.

(vi) that the prosecution did not examine the brother and grandmother of the child victim or any other independent witnesses.

(vii) that there are contradictions in the testimonies of the mother and the grandfather of the child victim on the aspect as to when the grandmother was informed about the incident.

5. Dr. M.P. Singh, learned APP for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the testimony of the child victim is consistent and reliable. He also submitted that the appellant was living in front of the house of the child victim. It was also submitted that no judicial TIP was required as the appellant was already known to the child victim being her neighbour.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the entire material on record including the Trial Court record.

7. During investigation, Ms.‘G’, mother of the child victim, stated that the age of the child victim was abo