The sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be the sole basis for conviction in cases of sexual offences, and there is no legal compulsion to seek corroboration of her statement, as long as it inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.

JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

2. This appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 08.07.2015 pronounced by the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T. No.658/2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(j) of IPC alongwith 3/4 and 5(m)(n)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act 2012(hereinafter referred to as ...... "the POCSO Ac, 2012") and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 14 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- under each sections with default stipulations.

3. The facts of the prosecution case are that, on 19.10.2014, at about 06:30 p.m., victim (PW1), aged about 6 years was playing outside her house, at that time, appellant came and took her to Kaaliyadeh Mahal by motorcycle and committed rape upon her. When the victim started crying, the appellant had slapped and threatened her. Appellant is uncle of the victim. On 20.10.2014, an F.I.R.(Exhibit-P/2) was lodged at Police Station - Bherugarh, Ujjain on the basis of intimation given by mother of prosecutrix(PW2).

4. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the matter for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(j) of IPC alongwith 3/4 and 5(m) (n)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

5. The trial court framed the charges against the appellant for the offences mentioned above and after discussing and appreciating the entire prosecution evidence at length, the learned trial court held the appellant guilty of the said offences and directed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment as mentioned herein above. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this criminal appeal.

6. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in all in this regard, being the prosecutrix, public witnesses, expert witnesses and police officials.

7. Learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae fo r the appellant submits that the appellant is not challenging the finding in respect of kidnapping, abduction, and sexual intercourse. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant stating that there were number of omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the prosecutrix(PW1) and her mother(PW2) did not support the case of prosecution and denied the offence of rape committed by the appellant. As per birth certificate issued by the office of Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam, the date-of-birth of appellant is 16.09.1999. The incident took place on 20.10.2014 and, therefore, at that time of alleged incident, the appellant was juvenile, hence, the learned lower Court erred in not considering the age of the appellant as per Juvenile Justice Act. He further submits that the version of the prosecutrix is unreliable as there are material improvements in her 164 statement as well as in her statement recorded on oath before the learned Trial Court. He further states that the prosecution has not been able to establish as to why the appellant being the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, would commit rape upon her. He further states that there are several judgements of this Court as well as the Supreme Court stating that if there are two views, one pointing towards the guilt of the accused and another towards his innocence, then the view which is favourable to the accused must be adopted. Therefore, the appellant could have been convicted on the basis of such evidence and, hence, it has been prayed that the judgment pronounced on 08.07.2015 in respect of conviction of appellant be set-aside and the appellant be acquitted from the aforesaid charges.

8. Learned Govt. Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant submits that the prosecutrix as well as the prosecution witnesses have duly supported the case of the prosecution. He states that the finding of DNA being similar is enough to retain a finding of conviction. He further submi