Point of law: POCSO - Special Court may, in appropriate cases, on its own or on an application having been filed, pass an order for interim compensation for the immediate needs of the child.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) read with Section 383 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant Rakesh @ Diwan challenging the judgment on conviction dated 19.12.2019 and order on sentence dated 18.01.2020 passed by the learned ASJ-07/Special Court (POCSO Act), South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in SC No. 2065/2016 arising out of FIR No. 513/2013 registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Okhla, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Further, vide order on sentence dated 18.01.2020, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 14 years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act along with payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- in default whereof to further undergo SI for a period of six months. The appellant was granted the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

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

“2. The facts disclosed in the charge-sheet reveals that at the time of alleged incident, PW-1/Victim and accused were residing in the jhuggi cluster of Sanjay Colony, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi. The FIR bearing No.513/2013 under Section 376 IPC & Section 6 of the POCSO Act came to be registered on the complaint of PW-2/'CD' (mother of the victim). The mother of the victim was a widow, who was supporting his family by doing odd jobs at various houses. It has been alleged that on 20.09.2013, at around 02.00 PM, the victim went outside her jhuggi and after a while, the mother of the victim started looking for her as she was not traceable. She made inquiries from the neighborers and came to know from PW-4/Sangam (age around 6 years) that accused had taken her daughter to his jhuggi. On gaining this information, she went along with PW-4 to the jhuggi of accused and knocked on the entrance door. The accused opened the door and ran away from there. The mother of the victim entered the jhuggi and saw her daughter lying naked on a cot with discharged semen on her mouth. The victim disclosed her mother that accused had committed penetrative sexual assault upon her by inserting his penis in her mouth. The mother of the victim wiped the mouth of her daughter and took her home. On reaching home, she informed her husband. On gaining this information, the father of the victim called his relatives and spoke with the father of the accused. He requested him to produce the accused but the father of the accused kept avoiding it. Finally, on the next day, at around 10.08PM, the mother of the victim made a call at 100 number and reported the matter to the police. On receiving this information, police officials arrived at the spot and recorded the statement of the mother of the victim and FIR was registered.

3. On registration of FIR, necessary investigation was carried out and accused was arrested. Medical examination of the victim and the potency test of the accused were done at AIIMS Hospital. Samples including the vaginal swab of the victim & the semen of accused were collected by the doctors during the examination of the accused and the victim. The clothes of the accused & the victim were seized. Samples and the seized clothes were sent for analysis to the FSL. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Site plan was prepared and the statement of other witnesses were recorded. The investigation concluded and the charge-sheet was put to the court Subsequently, the Investigating Officer collected the FSL report but the same remained inconclusive. The report was submitted in the court with the supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.”

3. The appellant was charged under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the trial, the prosecution examined total of 9 witnesses. Baby ‘K’, the child victim was examined as PW-1. Smt. ‘CD’, the complainant and mother