The testimony of a child victim can sustain a conviction under POCSO with minor contradictions and reasonable explanations of delay in FIR registration not undermining its credibility.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2017 and the order on sentence dated 31.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 (North- East), Special Court (POCSO Act), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in SC No. 162/2016 arising out of FIR No. 480/2016 registered under Sections376/377/506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO at P.S. Khajuri Khas, Delhi.Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 POCSO; and vide the impugned order on sentence, he was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years alongwith fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default whereof he was directed to undergo SI for 3 months.The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also given to the appellant.

2. The facts as noted by the Trial Court are as under:-

“Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is, that on 16.06.2016, victim aged about 06 years alongwith her mother had come to the police station. She alleged that on 06.06.2016, she alongwith her mother had gone to the house of her maternal grandparents at XXX, Delhi. She further alleged that in the evening of 07.06.2016, her mother had left her at the house of her maternal aunt. Thereafter, her mother had gone to market. She further alleged that her maternal uncle Bhanu Pratap came there and on the pretext of giving something, he took her to the bathroom. In the bathroom, he made her lie on a bench and then he took off her panty. He also removed his underwear and then inserted his urinary organ in her urinary organ. She further alleged that he also inserted his penis in her anus and threatened her not to disclose about it otherwise he would kill her brother and father. She further alleged that earlier also accused used to kiss her and used to touch her vagina. On 15.06.2016, while playing, she informed about these acts of accused to her cousin „M‟, who informed about it to her mother. On being asked, she informed about the acts of accused to her mother. Hence, the present FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet u/s 376/377/506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act was filed against the accused.”

3. On the completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed and, vide order dated 13.10.2016, the Trial Court framed charges under Section 6 POCSO, or in the alternative under Sections 376 /377 IPC, and additionally under Section 506 (II) IPC, against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined a total of 13 witnesses. The material witnesses being the child victim, examined as PW-2; her mother, examined as PW-3; Dr. Neelu Singh, who proved the MLC of the child victim, examined as PW-6; and the cousin ofthe child victim, examined as PW-7. The others, being official witnesses, testified as to the age of the child victim as well as other aspects of the investigation.

The appellant denied the prosecution‟s case at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and also produced his aunt „S‟ as DW-1. The child victim, at the relevant time, was less than 7 years old and a “child” under the POCSO Act.

4. Concededly, neither the age of the child victim nor her competence to depose was disputed during the trial or in the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that there was a delay in registration of the FIR, as according to the child victim the incident had last occurred on 07.06.2016, whereas the FIR was registered on 16.06.2016. It is further stated that the statement of the child vic