The testimonies of child victims were credible and corroborated; convictions were upheld based on consistent evidence, despite minor discrepancies regarding penetrative actions.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. Present appeal has been filed by appellant-convict challenging the judgment dated 5th May, 2018 and the order on sentence dated 8th May, 2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (North-West)-01, Special Court, POCSO, Rohini District Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 53123/2016 arising out of FIR No. 185/2016 registered with Police Station Ashok Vihar, whereby he had been convicted under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 POCSO and two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. The case of prosecution, as noted by the Trial Court, is reproduced hereinbelow:

"1. The facts of the case as borne out from the record are that on 29.03.2016, after entrustment of DD no.26-A, SI Rama Saroha and Ct. Sonika reached at the informed place i.e. CSA Colony, where ASI Raj Kumar, Ct. Satpal, both the child victims P and A, mother of child victim P and father of the child victim A were found present and father of child victim A produced the accused before her. SI Rama Saroha got both the child victims counseled through NGO counselor, got them medically examined at BJRM Hospital and also got accused medically examined. Thereafter, she made inquiry from the complainant (mother of `P') and recorded her statement, wherein she stated that on that day, at about 7.00 pm, her neighbour V.S. caught the accused red-handed while removing the underwear of his daughter i.e. child victim A and she also went there and on inquiry, child victim A told her that 8/10 days prior, accused took her to his house, got his children out of the jhuggi, removed her underwear as well as his clothes and lie upon her and touched his penis to her vagina, then ejaculated and when she raised alarm, accused left her and threatened that in case, she disclosed about the acts of accused to anyone, he will kill her by cutting her neck. Child victim A also disclosed that accused had also committed wrong act with the child victim P. Thereafter she made inquiry from her daughter/child victim P, who also told that accused took her to his house a day before yesterday and asked her to remove her underwear, for which, she refused and then, accused slapped her, pushed her, removed her underwear forcibly and also removed his pant and lie upon her and touched his penis to her vagina and then ejaculated and thereafter, he threatened her that in case, she disclosed about the acts of accused to anyone, he will kill her by cutting her neck and because of the fear of the accused, child victim A and P did not disclose about his acts to anyone. She requested for legal action against the accused. On the basis of statement of the complainant as well as MLC, present case FIR was registered. Site plan of the place of incident was prepared. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. The potency test of the accused got conducted at RML Hospital. Statement of both the child victims U/s 164 CrPC were got recorded. Documents regarding the date of birth of child victims were collected and thereafter, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed before this court.

2. After filing of the charge sheet in the matter, the copy thereof, was supplied to the accused. Arguments on the point of charge were heard and on 11.07.2016, charges u/s 5(m) of POCSO Act 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), punishable u/s 6 of Act and u/s 506 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."

FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT

3. The conclusion of the Trial Court is reproduced hereinbelow:

"25. If the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is applied to the facts of the present case then it would