Conviction upheld based on the consistent testimony of a minor victim, despite minor discrepancies in the reporting timeline and witness statements.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. In this appeal, the appellant lays a challenge to the impugned judgment dated 8th September, 2017 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short `POCSO Act') and the order on sentence dated 15th September, 2017 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) IPC and a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The fine if recovered was to be paid to the victim as compensation. No separate sentence was awarded to the appellant for offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there are gapping loopholes and unexplained portions of the prosecution case which renders the entire case of the prosecution unreliable. Though the claim of father of the victim is that the incident took place on 30th November 2013, however, Constable who reached on the spot on receipt of the call stated that he reached the spot at 8.10 am on 1st December 2013. Thus, though the alleged incident took place on 30th November 2013 at about 7 am, however, the call was made on 1st December 2013 at about 8 am. Thereafter, there was an unexplained delay of more than 24 hours in reporting the alleged incident. Parents of the prosecutrix who appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and PW-3 are not eye witnesses and thus, their testimonies being hearsay are required to be discarded. Further, PW-1 and PW-3 have made material improvements in their statements with which they were confronted with during cross-examination. Mother of the prosecutrix admitted that the toilet was used by ladies only and thus, it was incomprehensible that the appellant who is a male would have been permitted in the ladies toilet in the presence of several ladies. Though parents of the prosecutrix stated that there was only male attendant, however, PW-8 clearly stated that there was a female attendant in the ladies toilet present at that time. The said female attendant was not joined as a prosecution witness. Though PW-1 claims that the prosecutrix came out of the toilet after 5-10 minutes, however, PW-3 claimed that prosecutrix came out of the toilet after 30 minutes. There are material contradictions even in the testimonies of the police witnesses. Though the prosecutrix claimed that there were no separate ladies or gents toilets, however, PW-8 and PW-12 clearly stated that there were two separate blocks for ladies and gents. The prosecutrix in her testimony admitted that she had deposed as told by her mother. The learned Trial Court failed to note the explanation of the appellant that there was a quarrel on the issue of payment of user charges for delux Shauchalaya between the parents of the victim and the appellant and thus, the appellant was falsely implicated.

3. Learned APP for the State submits that there is no delay in reporting the matter to the police. Version of the prosecutrix is consistent. Contractor of the Sulabh Shauchalaya appeared as PW-8 and stated that he had kept one boy namely Gopal to look after the said toilet who on the date of incident kept Satish Kancha, the appellant for cleaning the toilet, thereby, proving that the appellant was working in the Sulabh Shauchalaya at the relevant time. The contradictions as sought to be pointed out do not go to the root of the matter and while dealin