The testimony of child victims can solely support conviction if deemed credible, even without corroboration, as long as minor inconsistencies are not material.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of the present appeals, the appellants seek to assail the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2023 and the order on sentence dated 13.02.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Special Court (POCSO), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in SC No. 129/2017 arising out of FIR No. 857/2016 registered under Sections 377 /367/506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO at P.S. Neb Sarai, Delhi.

2. As the impugned judgment and order on sentence are common, and common submissions have been addressed by the parties, the above noted appeals are taken up for consideration together and are disposed of by this common decision.

3. 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 Cr.P.C) are that on 08.12.2016, a complaint was made before the SHO, Police Station, Neb Sarai by the complainant/victim 'NK' stating that on 08.12.2016 at about 5.00 PM, he alongwith his younger brother 'KK' were returning to their home after withdrawing money from the ATM and when they stopped near Noorani Masjid for urination, two unknown boys came there and started abusing them. He has further stated that when they asked not to abuse them, said boys showed them knife and took them for a long distance inside the jungle. He has further stated that one of the said two boys put a knife on the neck of his younger brother 'KK' and asked him (victim 'NK') to put off his pant otherwise threatened to kill his brother 'KK'. He has further stated that due to said fear, he has put off his pant and said boy put his penis in his mouth. He has further stated that after some time, said boy called his associate who put his penis in his anus and then forcibly put the same in his mouth. He has further stated that thereafter both the said boys gave them beatings and snatched their cash of Rs.2,500/- which they had withdrawn from the ATM and both the accused ran away from the spot. He has further stated that in the meantime, two other boys came there and asked them as to what they were doing there and left the spot. Thereafter,he called the police at 100 number. These are the allegations of the complainant/victim upon which present FIR bearing No.857/2016 was registered against both the accused persons.”

4. On conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and initially, the Trial Court framed charges under Sections 377 /367/392/394/397/506 IPC and Section 4 POCSO against the appellants. However, these charges were later altered by the Trial Court to Sections 377 /367/392/394/397/506 IPC and Section 6 r/w Section 5 POCSO. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case, with the material witnesses being the two child victims, 'N' and 'K', who were examined as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively. Two independent eyewitnesses, namely Manish and Raja, were examined as PW-3 and PW-4, respectively. The MLC of the victim/N was proved through the examining doctor, who was examined as PW-8.

5. Learned counsels for the appellants have called into question the impugned judgment, contending that the statements of both the victims are not only full of material improvements over their own previous statements but also in relation to each other. It is further contended that the two alleged eyewitnesses cited by the prosecution did not support the prosecution's case and turned hostile. It is also argued that the prosecution has failed to connect appellant/Faisal Alam with the present case as the DNA profile generated from the victims' exhibits was