JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present appeal has been instituted under Section 374 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 04.10.2019 and 10.10.2019 respectively passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1 (POCSO), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in SC No. 114/16 arising out of FIR No. 247/2016 registered under Sections 376(2)/506 IPC and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 years with fine of Rs.20,000/- in default whereof to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months with fine of Rs.3,000/- in default whereof to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also directed to be provided to the appellant.

2. The facts of the present case, as noted by the Trial Court, are as under:-

"In brief the prosecution case is that on 20.07.2014, complainant alongwith her minor daughter aged about 8 years (names withheld) came to police station and informed IO regarding rape committed by her husband upon his own said daughter. On this, victim was got counselled from NGO and was got medically examined where Doctor observed 'hymen torn old tear'. Statement of complainant was got recorded wherein she alleged that accused, who is her husband, has committed rape upon her daughter 'K' more than once in her absence as she has gone to her native village and subsequently victim informed her about the same. Thereafter FIR was got registered and investigation was taken up. Accused was arrested. Site plan was prepared. Statements of victim and her mother was got recorded under S. 164 Cr.P.C. from learned metropolitan magistrate. Statement of younger sister of victim was also got recorded under S. 164 Cr.PC. Documents regarding age proof of victim and her younger sister were obtained. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet is filed. "

3. The charges were framed against the appellant by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)/506 IPC and Sections 5(m)(n)/6 of the POCSO Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In trial, the prosecution examined total eight witnesses. The child victim was examined as PW1. Baby 'K' (younger sister of the child victim) was examined as PW4. 'A' (mother of the child victim) was examined as PW6. Dr. Pooja Singh, who proved the MLC of the child victim, was examined as PW5. Dr. Shivesh Pandey, who proved the MLC of the appellant, was examined as PW2. SI Reena, the Investigating Officer, was examined as PW8, who stated that no exhibits were sent for FSL examination as the incident was old.

4. On 12.09.2017, the Trial Court noted the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that she was not disputing the genuineness of documents i.e., FIR, the statements of the child victim, the child witness and their mother recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and documents regarding the age of the child victim i.e., the admission and withdrawal register, the admission form and the certificate (which were collectively exhibited as Ex. A-4).

5. Mr. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that:

i) the child victim has been tutored by her mother, who was having an affair with one Sumit,

ii) the testimony of the child victim does not inspire confidence; on the day of the incident, she was not in Delhi as she had gone with her mother to their native village.

iii) the specific dates of alleged incidents are not mentioned in the complaint,

iv) the independent witness who was living in the room adjacent to the place of occurrence was not exami