Conviction under POCSO upheld based on consistent testimonies despite minor contradictions; procedural irregularities didn’t prejudice the appellant's defense.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `Cr.P.C.') is against the judgment dated 28.04.2017 and order on sentence dated 12.07.2017 passed by the learned ASJ-01, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in SC No. 440911/2016, whereby, the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 6 read with Section 5(n) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short `POCSO'), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment further simple imprisonment for 02 months.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. She submits that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in proper 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. She further submits that the testimony of the child victim (PW1), mother of the child victim/Munni (PW2) and sister of the child victim (PW4) differ from each other. According to her, throughout the testimony of the child victim, her sister and her mother is that they are in total five siblings i.e., four sisters including the child victim and a brother, whereas, during cross-examination in court, the mother of the child victim deposed that she has six children i.e., two daughters and four sons. There are discrepancies with regard to who was sleeping in the room when the alleged incident took place. There are contradictory versions regarding the arrest of the appellant. The mother of the victim/PW2 and Head Constable Ishwar Lal (PW3) have given different account of the arrest of the appellant, and the version of PW3 is not corroborated by any other witness. The child victim/PW1, in her testimony, has stated that her mother has told her that they must teach the appellant a lesson as he was a drunkard and used to beat his wife and children. The sister of the child victim, PW2, has deposed that on the day of the incident, the appellant and the mother of the child victim fought and that she has been tutored by her mother. The medical reasons for the presence of worms around the anal area of a child can happen due to various reasons such as constipation, passing hard stool etc., and therefore, even the medical examination of the child doesn't completely establish the commission of unnatural offence on the child.

4. She further argues that the FSL report submitted on 05.04.2017 by PW16/IO has not been put to the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and non-putting to the accused a vital piece of evidence is fatal to the case of the prosecution. She relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul v. State of Delhi CRL.A. No. 611/2022 and the decisions of the High Court in the cases Vishambahar Isiah v. State of Punjab, CRL.REV.P 277/2020 vide order dated 24.08.2021, Bal Kishan v. State of NCT, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2820 and Laxman @ Lucky v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 663.

5. On the other hand, learned APP on behalf of the respondent- State vehemently opposes the submissions, and submits that the offences committed by the appellant