The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of the victim's testimony without corroboration, the significance of a 'sterling witness', and the reliance on consistent testimony, supported by medical evidence, to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C") against the judgement of conviction dated 28.03.2017 and order on sentence dated 30.03.2017 passed by the learned, ASJ-01, (North), Rohini Courts, New Delhi, in case SC No.58469/2014 convicting the appellant for the offence under section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "POCSO") sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for 30 days and under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") convicting the appellant for a period of three years and fine of Rs 5000/- in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for 30 days with direction to run both the sentences concurrently.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned trial court is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. He submits that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in the right perspective, and there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is also submitted that there is no direct evidence against the present appellant, and the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellant. He further submits that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. The defence evidence was ignored and not given due weight. The appellant was denied the opportunity to effectively cross-examine the alleged victim. The witness statements are replete with contradictions, and the case of the prosecution is inherently improbable.

3. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposes the submissions and submits that the offences committed by the appellant/accused are heinous in nature and, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly convicted him. He submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered all the submission made by the appellant, and there is sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The learned APP has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1153 and a decision of this court in the case of Vijay v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10485.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.03.2014 at about 7:30 PM, when the victim, a girl aged between 11-12 years, was going to a public toilet, the accused met her on the way and caught her hand. Thereafter, he took her in a jhuggi, gagged her mouth, removed her jeans and committed a wrongful act with her. She got unconscious, and when she gained consciousness, she found herself in a hospital with her parents. On the basis of the above, the FIR No.259/14 in question came to be registered. The accused was arrested and charge sheeted. Charges for the offences punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses in support of the charges, namely, the father of the child victim, H (PW6), the child victim (PW2), the mother of the child victim, N (PW3), Mukesh Kumar(PW1), Dr Vidya Rani (PW4), Head constable (PW5), Sita (PW7), Constable Umesh (PW8), Laxman (PW9), Dr. Brijesh Narayan (PW10), Constable Kalpana (PW11), Head Constable Ved Prakash (PW12), Head Constable Gordhan Lal(PW13), Ms Rajni Ranga (PW14), Inspector Vipnesh (PW15), Dr Mukesh (PW16), Constable Prashant (PW17), Superintendent Anita Sharma (PW18), Naresh Kumar (PW19) and Superintendent Neetu (PW20). Thereafter, the appellant made his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, wherein, he denied the evidence and claimed innocence. He took the defence that the mo