J U D G M E N T

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J (Oral)

1. By the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15.03.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-01, Special Court (POCSO) North West District, Rohini Court, New Delhi, whereby the respondent (accused before the Trial Court) was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO’) and for the alternative charges under Section 376(2)(f)(i)(n)/506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the learned Trial Court are reproduced as under:

“Brief facts of the prosecution case are that DD No. 56B dated 26.07.2015 was recorded on PCR call regarding wrong act with 9 years old daughter of the caller about three days before but the victim had informed today only. The IO reached the spot where complainant S mother of the victim V met the IO and gave her statement to the effect that her husband is running a factory of making ladies purse in the residence itself where 4-5 workers are working. All the workers belong to their family. Accused Vimal @ Karwa was working in the factory since February, 2015 and left for his native village on Holi. He came back on 05.07.2015 and started working again. Today she has gone to market with her husband at 11.30 a.m. and they returned at 1.30 p.m. and found victim V having a mobile in her hand. On inquiry, she told that this mobile belongs to accused and thereafter started weeping and further told that about 2-3 days before accused took her to the room on the pretext of showing her game in the mobile and removed her and his clothes and inserted his penis in her shu shu. When she screamed he pressed her mouth and threatened to not to tell it anyone or else her parents shall be killed. Today her daughter also reported stomach ache and she informed her husband who called the police. On her statement this FIR was registered. IO prepared the site plan and victim was brought to SGM hospital for her medical examination. Accused was arrested and was medically examined. Statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded where she stated that accused used to call her on the pretext of mobile and used to do wrong act with her by inserting his penis in her vagina. He also applied mustard oil on her private part and his private part and also threatened not to tell it to anyone. She had severe stomach ache and informed her mother. Accused used to call her at 6.00/6.30pm. when her parents had gone to the market to get vegetables. Exhibits of the victim and accused were sent to FSL and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.”

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. The incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the accused person during his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he claimed to have been falsely implicated in the present case and examined one witness in his defence.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, Ms. Neelam Sharma, learned APP appearing for the State argued that the judgment dated 15.03.2019 is based on conjectures, surmises and the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the testimony of the victim in its right perspective ignoring the well-settled proposition of law that the sole testimony of the victim in the case of sexual assault is sufficient to base conviction of the accused. She further contended that the impugned judgment is a case of legal defects and therefore is liable to be set aside.

5. She further contended that the statements of PW-1 (the victim)

recorded at different stages were consistent and stood corroborated with the testimony of PW-8 (mother of the victim); that the learned Trial Court has placed undue weightage on the minor contr