A conviction for sexual offences must rest on reliable evidence; discrepancies in testimonies can undermine confidence in the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C") against the judgment of conviction dated 29.04.2017 and order on sentence dated 01.05.2017 passed by the learned, ASJ-01, (North-East), Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi, in case SC No. 45014/2015 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) & 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment further simple imprisonment for 01 month.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. He submits that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in the right perspective, and there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. There is no direct evidence against the present appellant, and the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellant.

3. He further submits that there was a delay in the filing of the FIR No. 349/2015. The learned Trial Court has failed to record whether the child witness had the requisite intelligence to depose. There is no corroboration to the testimony of the child witness. The MLC does not corroborate the statement of the child witness. The doctor who examined the child witness was not examined. The CFSL report was deliberately not exhibited as it was in favour of the present appellant and that the statement of PW6/father of the child victim support the innocence of the appellant.

4. On the other hand, Learned APP, on behalf of the respondent state, vehemently opposed the submissions, and he submits that the offences committed by the appellant/accused are heinous in nature and, therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted him. He submits that the learned Trial Court has considered all the arguments made by the appellant, and there is sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The learned APP has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1153 and a decision of this court in Vijay v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10485.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.07.2015, on receipt of DD No. 28-D regarding an incident of rape, superintendent Narender Singh from police station Sonia Vihar along with constable Deepak Kumar and lady constable Sumitra reached the spot where caller/complainant Om Prakash met them along with his daughter, the victim aged six years and his wife, Bimlesh. The complainant/father of the victim, in his statement, stated that he resides with his family and does embroidery work. He has three children, out of whom the elder two are sons, and the third one is a daughter, aged about six years. On 05.07.2015, when he returned home from work, his daughter/victim told him that on 03.07.2015 at about 1:00 PM, Dharmender/accused, who resides in the neighborhood, called her on the pretext of getting an Aadhaar Card prepared and took her to his house where he put off her nicker and his own nicker too and committed a wrongful act with her. Dharmender had threatened the victim and told her not to tell anyone about it. The victim told her mother about the incident on 04.07.2015 and further told that Dharmender had earlier also committed such acts with his urinating organ and finger. Thereafter, the complainant was informed of the same by his wife, and he then made a call at number 100. On the bas