The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on medical evidence, including DNA analysis, to establish the commission of the offense and the involvement of the accused. The judgment also clarified the retrospective application of the amended Section 376(3) IPC.

JUDGMENT

Archana Puri, J. - Challenge in the present appeal, is to the judgment of conviction dated 07.05.2019 and order of sentence of even date passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Palwal, vide which appellant Irshad was held guilty and convicted under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 376(3) and 506(II)IPC. For the commission of offence under Section 376 (3) IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years and fine of 25,000/- was also imposed, in default whereof, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Likewise, for commission of offence under Section 506(II) IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of 5,000/- was imposed, in default whereof, he was further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. Background facts in nutshell are as follows:-

That, on 02.06.2018, at about 7.00 a.m., the prosecutrix (name withheld) had gone to fields to answer the call of nature and there, Irshad had come and finding her alone, caught hold of her and committed rape upon her and he also extended threat that, in case the prosecutrix discloses this incident to anyone, then she and her family members would be killed. Having reached her house with much difficulty, the prosecutrix apprised her mother about the incident caused by Irshad having come to the fields and having committed rape upon her.

3. The proceedings in the present case were initiated, on the basis of the complaint filed by the prosecutrix. Accused Irshad was apprehended. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against him.

4. On presentation of challan, compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. was made and on the basis of material coming forth, charges were framed against accused-appellant Irshad under Section 4 POCSO Act, Sections 376 (3) and 506(II) IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In endeavour to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, besides adducing documentary evidence. Prosecutrix (name withheld) herself stepped into witness box as PW-1 and her parents, both mother and father, stepped into witness box as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. Besides the aforesaid witnesses, prosecution also examined PW-4 Dr.Pushp Priya, L/MO, PW-5 L/Ct. Nisha, PW-6 ESI Rohtash Singh, PW-7 ASI Sharwan Kumar, PW-8 L/Ct. Sunita, PW-9 Head Teacher of the school of victim, PW-10 L/HC Shobha, PW-11 SI Anju, PW-12 L/Ct. Jai Shree, PW-13 L/ASI Papita and PW-14 Dr.Ajay Goyal.

6. Thereafter, evidence of the prosecution was closed.

7. On closure of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating circumstances, appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to accusedappellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, the accusedappellant denied those allegations and pleaded false implication. However,no evidence was led in defence by the accused-appellant.

8. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor, learned defence counsel and on appraisal of the evidence brought on record, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused-appellant was held guilty, convicted and sentenced, as already detailed in earlier portion of the judgment.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused-appellant has filed the present appeal.

10. In pursuance of notice issued by the Court, learned State counsel made appearance on behalf of the State. Even the lower Court record was requisitioned.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel and have perused the record.

12. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant assiduously submitted that to secure the verdict of conviction for the appellant, it was incumbent upon the prosecution, to establish the guilt of the appellant, beyond shadow of reasonable double. However, it is submitted that there are various