The POCSO Act presumes guilt upon establishment of foundational facts; minor contradictions in the prosecution's case do not undermine the overall credibility of the victim's testimony.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgement of conviction dated 29.01.2020 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 6 read with 5(j) of POCSO Act and order on sentence dated 04.02.2020 passed by the ASJ (POCSO Act), South East, Saket Courts in SC No. 1811/2016.

Vide order on sentence, the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 14 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- for offence punishable under Section 6 read with section 5(j) of POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell was that on 13.05.2014, information was received in P.S. Govind Puri that the prosecutrix, who was minor and pregnant had been admitted in ESI hospital by her parents vide MLC number 456/2014 which was recorded vide DD no. 11-A and the same was entrusted to SI Jitender and MLC of the prosecutrix was handed over to him. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded in the hospital. She stated that the appellant was her fufa (Uncle) who lived nearby and his meals were prepared at her house and she used to deliver them sometimes, along with her sister. About 2-2½ months prior, the appellant called her and her sister for cleaning the utensils at his house. When they reached his house in the evening, after they washed the utensils, the appellant sent prosecutrix’s sister to buy cigarettes for him and then he committed rape upon the prosecutrix. He also threatened not to tell about the incident to anyone. However, after some time the prosecutrix’s menstruation stopped and she became pregnant, whereafter she disclosed the incident to her parents.

3. Vide order dated 09.10.2015, charges were framed under Section 6 read with 5(j) of POCSO Act, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, in total, fourteen prosecution witnesses were examined. The prosecutrix ‘Y’ was examined as PW1, her sister ‘T’ who had accompanied her as PW2 and the mother of prosecutrix was examined as PW3. Mr. Jarnail Singh, the landlord of the appellant was examined as PW9. The IO SI Kala Joshi was examined as PW14. The rest of the witnesses were formal witnesses who deposed about various aspects of the investigation. In defence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 CrPC, wherein he denied the prosecution’s case, and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present matter.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and the Trial Court has erred in convicting him. It is submitted that there are material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses. While the prosecutrix stated that she was washing utensils inside the house, the IO had deposed that there was no such place inside. It is further stated that though the prosecutrix named one Sameer in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, however no investigation was carried out qua him. It is contended that the prosecutrix got pregnant because of this Sameer and not the appellant.

Alternatively, it is pleaded that if this Court is inclined to dismiss the appeal on merits, the appellant be released on the period already undergone. It is submitted that the appellant has undergone more than 12 years and 8 months including remission. Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Sonadhar v. State of Chattisgarh decided on 06.10.2021 in SLP (Crl) No. 529/2021. It is submitted that the appellant belongs to poor strata of society and needs to provid