The sole testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases can support a conviction if credible, with delays in FIR filing due to fear not undermining the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 28241/2016 on the file of Additional Session Judge-05, (Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi, assailing the judgment dated 14.12.2017 and order on sentence dated 18.12.2017 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC ) and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the PoCSO).

2. The prosecution case is that on 29.07.2015, at about 9:45 PM, while PW2 was returning home from her maternal grandmother’s house, the accused wrongfully restrained her, sexually assaulted and criminally intimidated her. It was also alleged that for about six months prior to the incident, the accused had been stalking and harassing PW2. Hence, as per the charge sheet/final report, the accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 341 , 354D IPC and Section 8 PoCSO Act.

3. On the basis of Ext. PW2/A FIS of PW2, given on 31.07.2015, Crime No. 301 of 2015, Civil Lines Police Station, that is, Ext. PW1/A FIR was registered by PW6, Woman Sub- Inspector (WSI). PW6 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections.

4. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court as per order dated 09.02.2016, framed a Charge under Sections 341 , 354D, 363, 506 IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the PoCSO Act, which was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 6 were examined and Exts. PW1A-C, PW2/A-C, PW3/A-B, PW4/A, PW6/A and Mark 3A.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence, stating that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that he had given a loan of Rs.6,000/- to the father of PW2 about one year before the alleged incident, and when he asked for his money back, the father of PW2 started quarrelling with him, and akalandra under Section 107 /151 Cr.P.C was also registered on 29.07.2015. He further stated that PW2 has levelled false allegations against him at the instance of her parents because of the said quarrel. He was beaten by the father and brother of PW2, which also caused him injuries.

7. After questioning the accused persons under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non- compliance of the said provision does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (seeMoidu K. versus State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 ; 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). In the case on hand, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Cr.P.C. has caused any prejudice to him.

8. On behalf of the accused, DWs. 1 to 3 and Exts. DW1/A and A1 were marked.

9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both side