The conviction under the POCSO Act is upheld as the appellant was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault against a minor, with corroborated evidence from the victim's consistent testimonies despite minor discrepancies.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. The appellant Manoj Tyagi @ Monu vide the present appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2018 and the impugned order on sentence dated 27.07.2018 of the learned ASJ-01, Judge, Special Court POCSO, KKD, Delhi vide which the appellant in relation to the charges framed against him qua the alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 with an alternative charge of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 367 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 367 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and was sentenced to undergo the minimum Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in case of non-payment of the fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days in default with the appellant having also been sentenced to undergo minimum Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 367 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in case of non-payment of the fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days in default with all the sentences having been directed to run concurrently.

2. The DLSA was directed vide the impugned order on sentence dated 27.07.2018 to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- under Rule 7 (2) of the POCSO Rules, 2012 r/w Section 33 (8) of the POCSO through funds maintained under the Victim Compensation Scheme for mental torture and agony suffered by the victim due to the offence committed by the accused.

3. Along with the appeal was Crl.M.A.1839/2019 seeking condonation of 86 days delay, which application was allowed vide order dated 28.01.2019.

4. Notice of the appeal and the accompanying application Crl.M.B.168/2019 seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal was accepted on behalf of the State. The TCR was requisitioned and nominal roll was also called for from the Superintendent Jail, Delhi. Vide order dated 17.10.2019, it was considered appropriate that the appeal is heard finally. Production warrants were thus issued to the Superintendent Jail, Delhi for production of the appellant. The TCR having been requisitioned and received, submissions were made on behalf of either side on 21.01.2020. Written submissions were also submitted on behalf of the appellant.

5. The charges framed against the appellant on 19.05.2018 were to the effect that on 14.11.2014 at around 9.50 p.m. at house No.1123/35, Multani Mohalla behind Satsang Bhawan, Geeta Colony, the appellant had allegedly kidnapped the victim K, aged 10 years in order that he may subject him to unnatural lust or knowing it to be likely that he would be so subjected to unnatural lust and had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 367 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 with the appellant having also been charged of having at that time, date, place forcibly put off the trouser of the victim and also removed his trouser and then grappled with the victim wit