Conviction for sexual assault on a minor established by credible testimony and corroborated medical evidence; strict sentences enforced for such offenses.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. (Oral)--By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated 20th January, 2017 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 363 IPC and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, the `POCSO Act') and the order on sentence dated 31st January, 2017 whereby the appellant has been directed to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default whereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days for offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 363 IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. FIR No. 542/2013 was registered at P.S. Shahbad Dairy for offences punishable under Sections 363 /323/376/506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act on the complaint of the mother of the victim on 22nd October, 2013. The complainant alleged that at about 5 pm, she sent her elder daughter, the victim `R' to a nearby shop to buy a needle. However, the victim did not come for some time when she sent her husband to search her. In the meanwhile, victim came back crying and her pajami was smeared with blood. On enquiry, the victim disclosed that at the shop, she met her neighbour i.e. the appellant herein, who on the pretext of buying a needle took her across the road and committed sexual assault on her after threatening her and thereafter, left the victim near her house. The complainant along with her husband went to their neighbour Sakaldeep where it was informed that Dalip used to visit him. They went to the room of Dalip where the victim identified Dalip as the person, who took her across the road and committed sexual assault on her. In the meantime, neighbours gathered and started beating Dalip whereafter the police arrived.

3. Victim was examined by Dr. Yudhvir Singh (PW3) and Dr. Nidhi, who appeared as PW8 besides Dr. Geetanjali Singh, who appeared as PW18 before Court. The victim was examined as PW1, her father as PW4, her mother as PW5, her uncle as PW7, her cousin as PW9, the neighbour Sakaldeep as PW6, Hansraj, the neighbour as PW11 and landlord as PW10. To prove the age of the victim, the prosecution examined PW2 who brought the school record, as per which, the date of birth of victim was 15th March, 2007. Thus, on the date of alleged incident, the victim was 61/2 years' old.

4. In her testimony before the Court, the victim reiterated her version stated under Section 161 CrPC that her mother had sent her for purchasing a needle at the nearby shop. When she was going to purchase the said needle, Dalip caught her. She knew Dalip since he used to visit the locality often and on the day of incident, took her to jungle and made her lie on the ground. He touched her urinating part and inserted his fingers into it. His finger had long nails. He also urinated upon her. He opened his underwear and also took out her underwear and lied down on her. He pressed her mouth with force and also pressed her throat. She raised alarm. In the meantime, one Baba came and asked her to go home. She went home crying and narrated the incident to mother. Victim identified Dalip as the person who committed rape on her.

5. In cross examination, the victim clarified facts and on a Court question being asked as to whether, she had deposed on the basis of what her mother told her and what really happened with her, the victim stated that this all happened to her and that is why, she stated so. She stated that she has written the facts in the copy as well and tha