JUDGMENT

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J. (Oral)

CRL. L.P. 603/2018

1. By the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as `Cr.P.C.') the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge-01, Special Court (POCSO) South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi, whereby the respondent (accused before the Trial Court) was acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as `POCSO').

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

"(i) That DD No. 26-A was registered at Police Station New Friends Colony on 19.03.2014, on receipt of the information that a minor girl, Baby `R' aged about 15 years has been sexually assaulted at her residence, the said DD was marked to SI Sukhvinder Singh (PW-6) and accordingly SI Sukhvinder Singh along with SI Seema (PW-5) arrived at the spot i.e. H.No.158, Saria Julena, Near Buland Masjid, Delhi. The statement of the victim was recorded by SI Seema wherein she stated that on 19.03.2014, at about 06:30 pm, in absence of her mother; accused Guddu Pal who used to work at Ramesh's Dhaba, gave a tooth bite on her cheek and forcibly pressed her breast, inevitably when she tried to raise an alarm, the accused clogged her mouth and ran away from the spot.

(ii) Based on her statement recorded by SI Seema, FIR No. 109/14 under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act was registered at Police Station New Friends Colony. During the course of investigation, the statement of the victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded on 20.03.2015 and the accused Guddu Pal was arrested on 23.03.2015 vide arrest memo (Ex.PW1/D).

(iii) After the completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed and after committal, arguments on the point of charge were heard and charges U/s 8 of the POCSO Act 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."

3. To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses in all. Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the charges framed against him and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case and did not to lead any evidence in his defence.

4. After hearing the counsels for both sides and on appreciation of entire evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused for the charged offences.

5. Mr. G.M. Farooqui learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the impugned judgment dated 18.05.2018 is based on conjectures, surmises and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the testimony of the prosecutrix in its right perspective ignoring the well-settled proposition of law that the sole testimony of the victim of sexual assault is sufficient to base conviction of the accused.

6. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the learned Trial Court has placed undue weightage on the minor discrepancies in the statements of the PW-1 (the victim) and PW-2 (mother of the prosecutrix), contrary to which both the statements are consistent and corroborative in nature and there are no major omissions and contradictions in their testimonies. He further contended that the learned Trial Court had erred in disregarding the MLC of the victim, which categorically reveals that the victim was subjected to sexual assault. Counsel for the State has lastly urged that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case; hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of counsel for the State and also perused the material available on record.

8. Returning to the facts of the present case, the moot point involved for consideration in present leave petition is whether evid