JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2. In view of order dated 23.06.2020, the next date of hearing i.e.

19.08.2020 is cancelled. The appeal is taken up for final disposal.

3. Appellant impugns judgement on conviction dated 21.11.2019 and order on sentence dated 27.11.2019 whereby appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act for short) and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl, then aged 9 years, a student of Class-IV, made a complaint that on 21.08.2015 at 2.30 p.m. when she and her brother (then aged 7 years) were present in the house and were watching TV, the appellant came and enquired about the presence of the mother in the house. When the child victim informed that the mother was away to her job, the appellant came inside the house and removed her leggings and stated feeling/rubbing his hand on her thighs. The victim became frightened, tried to run out of the house but the appellant pulled her 2/3 times inside the house. Somehow, the victim managed to free herself and went to the house of one Auntie in the neighbourhood. When she found that she was not at home, the victim returned to her house.

5. At about 3.30 p.m. the appellant once again came into the house of the victim and asked the victim to play songs on TV. The victim told the appellant to go away upon which the appellant left. At about 4.00 p.m. when the victim was going to her tuition class, the appellant once again met her on the way and asked her as to at what time she would return. She did not respond and proceeded to her tuition. At about 8.00 p.m., when she came home, she informed her mother and thereafter the police was called.

6. Based on the complaint made by the victim, the FIR was registered. Pursuant to the FIR, the statements of the victim and mother were recorded.

7. As per the prosecution, the child victim, her brother and mother of the victim remained consistent in their respective statements given to the police as also in their testimonies before the trial court.

8. Based on the evidence led by the prosecution, trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO by the impugned judgment.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has referred to the testimonies of the witnesses. Learned counsel contends that there was discrepancy in the statement of the victim. He further contended that the entire complaint seems to be an offshoot of a loan transaction between the appellant and the mother of the victim and when appellant demanded his loan amount, the complaint was registered.

10. Learned counsel further contended that the officer who had recorded rukka as well as the child counsellor who was alleged to be present when the police officer responded to the first call made was not recorded shows that prosecution story is not believable.

11. Learned Addl. PP appearing for the State submits that the child victim, her brother and mother have been consistent in their testimonies and there are no discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses.

12. Learned Addl. PP further submits that the testimonies of the child victim and her brother are of sterling quality and there is no discrepancy in their statements. He further contends that there is no material to show that there was ever any loan transaction between the appellant and the family of the child victim. He further submits that the appellant was a mere worker and was not capable of extending any loan.

13. In support of the case, prosecution had produced 8 witnesses. Prosecution had also examined ASI Santo (PW3) who had deposed that she had gone to the house on receipt of the complaint and s