The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of medical evidence in cases of sexual offences, especially those involving child victims. The judgment also emphasizes the need for a sensitive approach when dealing with cases of child rape.

JUDGMENT

Siddharth Mridul, J.

1. The present appeal under the provision of Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C"), read with section 383 of Cr.P.C, arises out of the judgment dated 11.10.2019 and the order on sentence dated 31.10.2019, rendered by the learned Additional Session Judge-01, Special Court, (POCSO), South District, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, in Session Case No. 7763/2016, titled as `State vs. Bagender Manjhi', emanating from F.I.R. No.152/2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "subject FIR:) under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act"), registered at Police Station-Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.

2. By way of the impugned judgment dated 11.10.2019, Bagender Manjhi ("the Appellant"), has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under the provision of Section 376(2)(f) IPC and section 6 read with section 5/3 of POCSO. Further, by way of the impugned order on sentence dated 31.10.2019, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs.20,000/. In default of the payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two additional months.

3. Since this matter concerns sexual offences against a `minor', the names of the prosecutrix and some key witnesses have been anonymized in keeping with the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported as (2019) 2 SCC 703.

4. The gravamen of the charge, for which the Appellant has been convicted; is for having committed penetrative sexual assault on his niece Baby "J"; being the brother-in-law of the mother ("PW 1") of the victim, hereinafter referred to as the "prosecutrix"; an infant girl aged about one year old, at the time of commission of the offence.

5. The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of the subject criminal appeal are encapsulated herein below:

i) The case arises from receipt of a DD Entry No. 16A dated 01.12.2012, recorded pursuant to a reported altercation; during patrolling, by Head Constable Kulbir Singh ("PW 4") at Aliganj, Mother Dairy, New Delhi. Upon reaching the spot of the quarrel, PW 4 was apprised that, the appellant had committed rape on the prosecutrix. The appellant, at this stage, was being held by members of the public. PW 4 got the appellant released and immediately informed the Duty Officer, Officer HC Shiv Kumar ("PW 12") of the incident that had occurred. Following this, W. Sub-Inspector Kailash ("PW 10") along with W. Constable Rameshwari ("PW 11") and Constable Surender ("PW 8") reached the spot and commenced the investigation. Thereafter, PW 10 took the prosecutrix, her mother (PW 1) and the appellant to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, where the prosecutrix and the appellant were medically examined.

ii) Thereafter, PW 10 recorded the statement of Ms. "D" i.e., PW 1 (name mentioned at Serial No. 01 in the list of witnesses attached with the chargesheet, but withheld in order to protect the identity of the prosecutrix), the mother of the prosecutrix; wherein, she asseverated that she and her husband are residents of the jhuggis situated at Aliganj, near Khanna Market, New Delhi and that the appellant, who hails from their native village, resides in the same jhuggis. PW 1 further stated that, on 01.12.2012, Mr. "TM" ("PW 2") i.e., her husband and the appellant, had consumed liquor together and when her husband returned to the jhuggi, she served food i.e., chicken to him. PW 1 furthermore stated that PW 2 had asked her to send food to the appellant as well; and thereupon she had sent the same to the appellant through her infant daughter (the prosecutrix). PW 1 also stated that after some time the appellant came to their jhuggi and took away the prosecutrix-who was playing