The victim's consistent testimony and witness corroboration can establish guilt, and failure to rebut statutory presumptions can lead to conviction.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.10.2020, convicting the appellant herein for an offence under Section 363 IPC read with Section 8 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as 'The POCSO Act). By a separate order dated 20.11.2020, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.2,500/- for offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and in default further imprisonment for a period of three years. The appellant is also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs. 2,500, for the offence punishable under Section 8 POCSO Act and in default of payment further imprisonment for a period of three months, both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. FIR No.606/13, dated 01.12.2013 was registered at Police Station Binda Pur for offences under Sections 354, 363 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. On investigation charge-sheet under Sections 354, 366A, 506 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act has been filed on 25.01.2014.

3. The brief facts as narrated in the charge-sheet are:

a) On 01.12.2013 a PCR call was received at Police Station Binda Pur, Delhi regarding sexual offence on a minor, the complaint was registered vide DD No. 14A.

b) On receiving the complaint, medical examination of the complainant was conducted at Deen Dayal Upadhayay Hospital vide MLC No. 26847. The statement of the victim/prosecutrix was recorded. In her statement, the prosecutrix stated that on 30.11.2013, she left her house at 7 PM to buy momos from Nawada. While coining back from Nawada, the prosecutrix met the accused/appellant herein, who is a neighbour of the child victim. The appellant enticed the prosecutrix to sit on his scooty and took her to one house in Matiala. While the accused/appellant was taking the prosecutrix on his scooty, the brother of the prosecutrix saw them. It is stated in the statement that the accused caught hold of the hand of the prosecutrix and forcefully took her inside the house. He asked her to do the wrong act with him, the prosecutrix got perturbed and ran away from the spot and came back to her house. The prosecutrix stated in her statement that she was very scared and hence she did not disclose anything to her mother. On the next day, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother and her mother brought her to the police station. On her complaint, FIR No.606/13, dated 01.12.2013 was registered at Police Station Binda Pur for offences under Sections 354, 363 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

c) The accused was arrested on 01.12.2013. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 05.12.2013. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C the prosecutrix stated that on 30.11.2013, at about 7:30 PM when the prosecutrix was returning back from Navada after purchasing Momos the appellant who is a neighbour stated that he would drop her back home in his scooty. It is stated that she refused to go with the appellant but the appellant insisted and the prosecutrix sat on the scooty of the appellant. The appellant took her to a house which he had taken on rent. He asked the prosecutrix to come inside the house and told her that he wanted to talk to her. It is stated that when the prosecutrix told him that she is like his daughter and that whatever he wanted to tell her he can tell her but she will not enter the house. It is stated that the appellant told her that he will not even spare his daughter let alone the prosecutrix. It is stated that when the appellant was trying to open the lock, she ran away. It is stated that the appellant ran after her and warned her not to reveal about this incident to any person.

d) The charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The appellant pleaded that he is not guilty and claimed trial.

e) To prove its case the prosecution examined 10 witnesses, i. PW-1 is the child victim.

i