J U D G M E N T

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. There can be no manner of doubt that a conviction for committing penetrative sexual assault can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. [Ref: Boby vs. State, Crl.A 1119/2014; Vishnu (alias) Undrya vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2006) 1 SCC 283; State of M.P vs. Dayal Sahu , reported as (2005) 8 SCC 122)]. However, it is equally well established that, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be creditworthy and inspire confidence.

2. The State has instituted the present petition seeking grant of leave to assail the judgment dated 04.04.2018, in Session Case No.106/2014, arising out of FIR No.170/2014(hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject FIR’) under sections 376D/109 Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with sections 04/06/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO’) registered at Police Station-Bharat Nagar; whereby the Trial Court has specified the operative portion.

3. In sum and substance, it is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix (hereinafter referred to as the ‘victim’), along with her mother came to the police station at 11:50 pm on

25.03.2014 and made the following statement:

“

बयॊन ोकयॊ ोक S ê < पतॕ पर अपनॕ ʃ1 पॊपॊ कॕ ऺॊथ रऻतॎ aA और 4th class P पुतॎ aA͡ कल ोदनॊॠक 24.03.14 कख़ ऺॊथ करॎब 2:30 बजॕ ˜1 जख़ मॕरॎ friend ऻॖ मॏझॕ Vicky कॕ घर लॕकर गयॎ थॎ तब शऻॊॠ पर कख़ई नऻॎॠथॊ। घर कॎ ø2 ÷1 बॠद थॎ और खॏलॊ `ç तॊलॊ लटकॊ थॊ और शऻॊॠ पर कख़ई नऻॎॠ थॊ कॏ छ दॕर बॊद शऻॊॠ पर तॎन लख़ग आयॕ शख़ लख़ग खॊनॊ लॕकर आयॕ थॕ, ोजऺमॕ ऺॕ एक नॕ drink कर रखॎ थॎ, उऺकॕ बॊद ऻमनॕ खॊनॊ खॊयॊ, ोफर ˜1 नॕ मॏझऺॕ कऻॊ ोक आजॊ कॊम करशॊ लॕ तख़ S 8 कऻॊ तॐ मॏझॕ पऻलॕ घर छख़ी कर आजॊ तॐ चॊऻॕ ोजतनॊ रऻ लॕनॊ, उऺनॕ कऻॊ ोक S 2ʉ8 ऺॏबऻ छख़ी दॐफ़गॎ, पर S 8 कऻॊ ोक नऻॎॠमॏझॕ ÿʗ1 छख़ी दॕ तख़ बख़लॎ ोक S तॕरॎ ʃ1 कख़ ऺब कॏ छ ऺमझॊ दॐफ़गॎ, और मॏझऺॕ बख़लॎ ोक तॐ úȽ- कॊम करशॊ लॕ तख़ तॏझॕ पॖऺॕ .Pú8 तख़ S 8 मनॊ कर ोदयॊ ोफर उऺनॕ मॏझॕ ʃ1 कॎ कऺम दॎ तख़ S ˜1 कॕ ऺॊथ ऺख़ गयॎ। ोफर रॊत P ˜1 नॕ Vicky और उऺकॕ uncle कॕ ऺॊथ गलत कॊम ोकयॊ ोफर Vicky मॕरॕ पॊऺ आ गयॊ और बख़लॊ ोक मॕरॕ ऺॊथ कर लॕ तख़ तॏझॕ पॕऺॕ .Pú8 नऻॎॠतख़ मॕरॕ ऺॕ बॏरॊ कख़ई नऻॎॠऻख़गॊ और ोफर vikcy नॕ मॕरॕ ऺॊथ गलत कॊम ोकयॊ, ोफर ऺॏबऻ कख़ ˜1 जब अनपॕन घर जॊनॕ लगॎ तख़ S भॎ पॎछॕ ऺॕ ोनकल गयॎ और अपनॕ घर आ गयॎ ोफर अपनॎ ʃ1 कख़ ऺॊीॎ बॊत बतॊ दॎ। तब ˜1 मॏझॕ लॕकर थॊनॕ P आ गयॎ। उनकॕ 0ù- कॊनॐनॎ ø-J- 1 कॎ जॊए आपनॕ मॕरॊ बयॊन ोलखॊ, ऺॏन ोलयॊ ठॎक S͡

तभॎ ोषकॊयत नॕ ऻॊोजर थॊनॊ आकर अपनॊ बयॊॠ 2ʱ ÿ- तऻरॎर करॊयॊ, ोजऺ ऺरऺरॎ तग़र पॐछतॊछ कॕ बॊद NGO कख़ बॏलॊकर लीकॎ कॎ Counselling करशॊई तथॊ BJRH Hospital ऺॕ vide MLC No.-75587/14 पर medical करॊयॊ ोजऺमॕ Dr. नॕ A/H of Sexual assault तऻरॎर ूरमॊयॊ, ोजऺ पर लीकॎ कॕ बयॊन ऺॕ ऻॊलॊत ऺॕ मॏलॊोऻजॊ MLC ऺॕ श Counselling Report न ऺॕ अपरॊध u/s-376 IPC तथॊ 4POCSO कॊ ऺरिद ऻख़नॊ पॊयॊ जॊतॊ ऻॖ ोलऻॊजॊ तऻरॎर ऻजॊ úJÿ कॊयमॎ मॏकदमॊ ̾ Ct. Ramchander no.1536/NW अरऺॊल थॊनॊ ऻॖ। मॏकदमॊ ÿJ .ÿː करकॕ न० मॏकदमॊ ऺॕ èȅ- दॎ जॊयॕ। मन SI ] -ɞ1 a͡(cid:147)

4. On her statement, the subject FIR came to be registered and the victim was both medically examined, as well as, counselled.

5. Subsequent thereto, at the instance of the victim, the IO is stated to have prepared the site plan of the place of incident, but was unable to arrest the accused, since the premises was found locked. Subsequently, the statement of the victim was also recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the Magistrate concerned on 28.03.2014 and the respondents herein, as well as, a juvenile Laxmi were arrested.

6. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The following charges were framed against the respondents:

I) Respondent No.1 (i) Charges for commission of offence punishable under section 363 IPC read with 109 IPC and punishable under section 4 read with 3(a) of POCSO Act and in the alternate section 376(2) (i) IPC II) Respondent No.2 (ii) Charges for the offence punishable 363 IPC read with Section 109 IPC and 16 & 17 POCSO Act read with 107 and 109 IPC

7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined, as many as, 13 witnesses