A child victim's testimony can warrant conviction without corroboration if found credible, as supported by medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment of conviction dated 01.12.2023 and the order on sentence dated 06.02.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Special Court (POCSO), South District, Saket Courts, Delhi, in SC No. 193/2017 arising out of FIR No. 117/2017 registered under Sections 376/366A IPC and Section 6 POCSO at P.S. Neb Sarai.

Vide the order on sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 376(2) IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 1 year. He was further sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 366A IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 4 months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended to him.

2. The facts, in a nutshell, as noted by the Trial Court are extracted hereunder:

“Succinctly, the facts of the case unfolded from the charge sheet filed u/s 173 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short CrPC) are that on receipt of DD No. 32A dated 14.03.2017, on the directions of SHO, IO W/SI Jitendra Negi alongwith W/Ct. Shanti and Ct. Harender reached at the spot at XXX, New Delhi where the victim 'R' alongwith her parents were found seated in a PCR van. After leaving Ct. Harender at the spot, IO alongwith W/Ct. Shanti went to AIIMS Hospital in the PCR van and the victim was got admitted there but her statement could not be obtained at that time. Thereafter, the statement of father of victim was recorded wherein he has stated that on the day of incident, he and his wife went for their work and their three children i.e. two daughter and one son were left at the house. He has further stated that due to some work, he returned to his house at about 1.00 PM and found that his victim daughter 'R' aged about five years was missing from the house. He has further stated that he searched for the victim but did not find her and when he was returning back to his house, he found his victim daughter weeping outside the door of the house of his neighbour Jagat and her clothes were stained with blood. He has further stated that on inquiry from the victim, she had told that the accused took her to his house on the pretext of giving toffee to her, made her to lie on the bed, inserted his finger in her vagina and also gave tooth bite on her cheeks. He has further stated that when the accused came outside of his room, he asked the accused as to what he had done with his daughter, upon which accused had started quarreling with him and ran away from the spot after slapping him. He has further stated that someone from the public had called the police at 100 number. Thereafter, IO had collected the MLC of victim. On these allegations, the present FIR No. 117/2017 was registered against the accused.”

3. On conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the Trial Court framed charges under Sections 366A/376(2) IPC and Section 6 POCSO against the appellant, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of its case, with the material witnesses being (i) the child victim, aged about 5 years at the time, who was examined as PW-1; (ii) her mother, examined as PW-2; and (iii) her father, examined as PW-3. The MLC of the victim was proved through the examining doctor, who was examined as PW-5. The rest of the prosecution witnesses were police officials who deposed as to various aspects of the investigation. No defence evidence was led on behalf of the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has called into question the impugned judgment, contending first, that the conviction rests solely on the testimony of the child victim without any independent corroboration. It is further contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated owing to a