The main legal point established is the reliance on consistent testimonies, medical and forensic evidence, and the presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

POONAM A. BAMBA, J.

Vide this appeal, the appellant is assailing the judgment dated 24.07.2018 (‘impugned judgment’ in short) passed by Ld. ASJ-01/Special Judge, POCSO Act (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act” in short) and u/S. 376(2)(i) of The Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” in short), in Sessions Case No. 59234/2016, in case FIR no. 582/2016, Police Station Shahbad Dairy; and order on sentence dated 28.07.2018, whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life u/S. 376(2)(i) IPC along with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 60 days.

2. Briefly stating, the prosecution case is that on 01.08.2016 at about 12 : 00 noon, Smt. M (PW-2)/the complainant picked up her daughter victim N (PW-1) from her school and sent her back with a neighbor after handing over the keys to her advising her to get the door unlocked with the help of that neighbor and stay at home. Thereafter, she went to fetch her second daughter from her school. At about 01 : 30 p.m., when PW-2 returned home with her second daughter, she found victim N crying and saw that her frock and underwear had blood stains, on which she got suspicious. She then checked her private parts and noticed that she was bleeding. On enquiry, victim N told her that Deepak Bhaiya/the appellant had unlocked the door of the house and thereafter he came inside and removed her underwear and then put his su su wali jagah in her su su wali jagah. She felt pain and started crying on which Deepak Bhaiya, the appellant left. On hearing this, the complainant (PW-2) rushed to the house of the appellant/Deepak, who lived in the neighborhood and on finding him home she slapped him 2-3 times and questioned him as to why did he do galat kaam with her daughter. On which, the appellant admitted his guilt and fell on her feet and started apologizing and promised never to repeat his act. Complainant/PW-2 bolted the appellant's room from outside and called at number 100. Pursuant to which, police arrived and the appellant was handed over by the complainant to the police and she took victim N to Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini along with a Mahila Police official. On this statement/complaint Ex.PW2/A of PW-2, the FIR (Ex.PW3/A) in the present case came to be registered. The victim N as well as the appellant/accused were got medically examined. Statement of victim (PW-1) as well as that of her mother - the complainant (PW-2) u/S. 164 Cr. P.C. was got recorded by the Ld. Magistrate on 06.08.2016. The exhibits of the victim as well as that of the appellant/accused were sent to FSL for expert opinion. After recording of statement of witnesses and completion of investigation, charge-sheet u/S. 376 IPC and S. 6 POCSO Act was filed.

3. Vide order dated 03.10.2016, the appellant/accused was initially charged for offence punishable u/S. 6 POCSO Act and in the alternative u/S. 376(2)(i) IPC. Subsequently, vide order dated 18.07.2018, the charge was amended to read as Sec. 6 POCSO Act and Sec. 376(2)(i) IPC.

4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its case.

5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C., the appellant/accused admitted that he was residing in the same locality as that of the victim N. Appellant however denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of past quarrel between his mother and the mother of the victim N (PW-2) on the issue of drainage of dirty water, which used to flow from the house of the appellant towards the house of the victim N.

6. The appellant/accused examined one witness Subhash Yadav/DW1, in his defence.

7. The appellant has primarily challenged his conviction on the ground that except victim N/PW-1's deposition there is no evidence on record to connect the appellant to the crime. PW-1's competency to depose