The judgment establishes the importance of carefully evaluating the testimony of a child witness, the need for corroboration, and the possibility of tutoring, especially in cases involving the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING)

1. The present appeal filed under Section 374(2) read with Section 383 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.11.2019 and order on sentence dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned ASJ-04, Special Judge: POCSO Act, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 43/2017 in respect of FIR No. 247/2016 registered under Sections 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act at P.S. Begumpur whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Further, vide order on sentence dated 10.12.2019, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years along with payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo SI for 30 days.

2. The brief facts, as noted by the trial court, are as follows:

"2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.03.2016, FIR No. 247/2016 under Sections 376 IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act was registered at P.S. Begumpur against the accused herein for committing penetrative sexual assault upon the victim on the complaint of mother of victim who stated therein that she is housewife and her husband ply electric rickshaw. She has three daughters and her elder daughter 'S' is 6 years old. On 12.03.2016 at about 06.30 pm S was playing with her younger sister in the gallery outside her room. She was lying in her room due to her ill health. After some time, S came to her along with her younger sister and went outside leaving her sister there. After some time, she heard the cry of her daughter S, she immediately came outside the room and saw her daughter coming while crying from the adjacent room and holding her pajami. After sometime Rahul who was present in the same room, came outside the room and went away. When she asked her daughter, she told that Rahul had called him inside his room and bolted the room from inside. He gagged her mouth and pulled down her underwear and pajama and spit on her vagina. Then he inserted his finger in her vagina. She cried due to pain, then Rahul left her and opened the door immediately. Her husband came late in the night and she was also not well that is why they could not come in the night of 12.03.2016. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she corroborated the incident. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the JJB as accused claimed himself to be juvenile. The JJB vide its order dated 13.01.2017 held that accused was not child on the date of commission of offence. Thereafter, the present case was assigned to this Court.

3. The charge-sheet has been filed u/s. 376 IPC and u/s. 4 of the POCSO Act against the accused namely Altaf Ahmed and after hearing arguments on the point of charge, charge for the offence punishable under Section 5(m) of POCSO Act was framed against the accused by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."

3. Ms. Richa Dhawan, learned Standing Counsel, DHCLSC appearing on behalf of the appellant, has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the trial court failed to appreciate that the testimony of the child victim and her mother were not creditworthy as there were material improvements not only in the statements of the child victim but also, her mother Ms. 'RV'. It was also contended that the testimony of the child victim was also not creditworthy and admissible as the child victim was tutored. It was next contended that material witnesses were not examined. As per the prosecution case, although at the relevant time, the child victim was playing with her younger sisters but the sisters were not cited as witnesses. Also, the landlord of the premises was deliberately not cited as a witness. Lastly, it was also contended that there was no medical corroboration in as much as no blood stain or blood spot was observed on the underwear of the child victim during her medical examination.

4. Ms. Me