The evidence of the victim was found to be trustworthy and credible, and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. did not affect the credibility of the prosecution version. The court confirmed the conviction under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, emphasizing the importance of a sensitive approach in cases of sexual assault.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.6.2019 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8 Meerut, in Special Criminal Case No. 30 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 831 of 2014, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Inchauli, District Meerut in which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 376 IPC for 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment of 2 months, under section 506 IPC for 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment of 15 days and for under section 3/4 POCSO Act for 10 years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment of 2 months.

2. Brief facts of the case is that F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the victim, who is the complainant and the residence of Police Station-Kuvad, District-Girideeh, District-Jharkhand, presently residing in House No. 704, I Block, Ganganagar Meerut has lodged a written report at Police Station-Inchauli District-Mathura against the appellant with the allegation that that one month prior her maternal-father-in-law came for stay at her home. One month prior of lodging the F.I.R. the appellant committed rape upon her minor daughter, who is aged about 8 years. When on 10.11.2014 the condition of daughter became deteriorated then her daughter was checked up by the doctor and the doctor opined that sexual assault has been done against her daughter. Complainant enquired with the victim then victim told that one month earlier the appellant committed rape upon her by extending threat to her daughter. When the appellant was asked about the alleged incident, then the appellant on the behest of relationship requested for not saying about this incident to anyone and told that all the expenses on the treatment of her daughter shall be borne by him. She also stated that to create fear upon complainant, the appellant himself inflicted injuries on his neck and on account of injury on neck he was admitted in medical college.

3. On the basis of written report, (Exbt. Ka-1), F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant as Case Crime No. 831 of 2014, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Inchauli, District Meerut. After lodging of the F.I.R. the investigation of the present case was entrusted to the Investigating Officer-S.I. Om Veer Gupta. During the course of the investigation the site plan was prepared. The statements of the complainant and victim were also recorded. In the statement of under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that her age is about 8 years. During the course of the investigation the victim was also medically examined on 15.11.2014 in which she herself stated that her maternal-grandfather committed rape upon her 2-3 times. A medical examination report was prepared by P.W.-5, Dr. Sangeeta and as per medical examination report, no external or internal injury was seen on the body of the victim and her hymen was also found intact. Vaginal smear was taken for further examination and as per report dated 18.11.2014, no spermatozoa was seen on the vaginal smear. During the course of the investigation, the statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she clearly stated that the appellant committed penetrative sexually assaulted on her private part by inserting the finger. Thus, the victim has supported entire version of the prosecution.

4. After completing the entire formalities of investigation the charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No. 12 on 26.2.2015. The charges were framed on 25.1.2017 against the appellant under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act. Charges were read over to the appellant. The appellant denied the charges against him and claimed to be tried.

5. Prosecution in