The testimonies of minor witnesses can be relied upon if found reliable, and presumptions under the POCSO Act, 2012 can be drawn unless rebutted. The court also emphasized the need for rehabilitation and reformation measures for convicted individuals.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant vide the present appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 19.2.2020 and the impugned order on sentence dated 20.2.2020 of the learned Trial Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court)-04, POCSO in relation to FIR No. 113/2016, Police Station Aman Vihar whereby the appellant herein along with the co-convict Mohd. Sajid @ Benam was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for having subjected the minor child ‘A’ aged 13 years to gang penetrative sexual assault in terms of Section 5 (g) of the POCSO Act, 2012 which amounts to aggravated penetrative sexual assault as also qua the offence of commission of criminal intimidation to the victim ‘A’ and were sentenced as under:

with both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently, the fine in the instant case having observed to have not been paid with the benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, having also been given to the appellant and the co-convict.

2. Along with the appeal was Crl.M.A. No.17079/2020 filed on behalf of the appellant herein, namely, Chand, for condonation of 206 days’ delay in institution of the appeal which was allowed vide order dated 9.12.2020. Vide order dated 9.12.2020 the Crl.M.(Bail) No. 8424/2020 filed on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal was declined.

3. The report was called for from the Registry as to whether any appeal had been filed by the co-convict Mohd. Sajid @ Benam qua which the report has been received dated 19.1.2021 from the Registry to the effect that there is no appeal filed by the co-convict Mohd. Sajid @ Benam, in relation to FIR No. 113/16, Police Station Aman Vihar.

4. The Trial Court Record was requisitioned and has been received and perused.

5. JCL(A1) was also found involved in the matter and the charge sheet qua him was filed before the JJB with the charge sheet having been filed under Section 377/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the appellant herein as well as against the co-convict Mohd. Sajid @ Benam before the POCSO Court.

6. Charges were framed against the appellant herein and the co-convict on 25.7.2019 qua the offence punishable under Section 5(g) read with Section (6) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with an alternative charge qua the offence punishable under Section 377/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to which the appellant and the co-convict had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. Written submissions were submitted on behalf of the appellant as well as oral submissions have also been made on behalf of either side.

8. Charges were framed against the appellant and the co-convict on 25.7.2016 in relation to the allegations levelled in the charge sheet against the appellant herein and the co-convict to the effect that on 25.1.2016 at about 3 a.m. in the cabin of a truck bearing Registration No. HR-55T-2966, parked behind the Haridas Vatika, Aman Vihar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Aman Vihar, both the appellant herein and the co-convict along with their accomplice JCL(A1) in furtherance of their common intention had committed gang penetrative sexual assault on the child victim ‘A’ , a minor boy, aged 13 years and voluntarily had carnal intercourse wi