JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 08.04.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, North West 01, Rohini District Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The appellant also impugns the order on sentence dated 18.04.2016, whereby he was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000/- for committing an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO. The appellant was also directed to serve simple imprisonment for a further period of six months, if he defaulted in the payment of the said fine.

2. The impugned judgment was rendered in connection with a case arising from FIR No. 478/14, under Section 6 of the POCSO and Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC, registered with P.S. Aman Vihar, on 13.05.2014. The said FIR was registered at the instance of the mother of the child victim. She stated that after the death of her first husband Kamal, she had married the appellant Amarjeet (accused). The victim was born from her earlier wedlock. She alleged that the accused had sexually assaulted the victim.

3. She alleged that on 13.05.2013, she had been working at Panni Godownandonthatday,atabout3.30pm,oneneighboringlady,whom the people used to call ‘nani’, came there and informed her that she had saved the child victim from appellant, who was about to commit sexual assault upon her. Thereafter, she along with nani returned home, where the child victim narrated the entire incident to her. By that time, the appellanthad run awayfromthere.Thereafter,she tookthe childvictim to the concerned PS and requested that legal action be taken against the appellant.

4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses.TheTrialCourthadevaluatedtheevidenceavailableandhad found the appellant guilty of the offence for which he was charged.

5. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment, inter alia, on the ground that the medical examination of the victim had revealed that the hymen of the victim was intact and also there was no external injury. There were contradictions in the testimonies of the child victim (PW-6) and the witness, Majida (nani) who deposed as PW-9. The appellant further contends that there is a contradiction in the statement ofthevictimrecordedunderSection164oftheCrPCandthedeposition made before the court. The appellant states that the Trial court erred in placing reliance on the testimony of the child victim since the victim is a minor and could be easily tutored. The appellant further contends that non-examination of the mother of the victim (the complainant) also raises doubts as to the allegations made by her. There was also no proof that witness Majida was on leave on the day of the incident. It is also contended that PW-9 (Majida) had also confirmed that the mother of thevictimandtheappellantdidnothaveacordialrelationship;and,this according to the appellant, raises doubts as to the case set up by the prosecution.

Evidence.

6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to briefly examine the evidence led by various witnesses.

7. Dr. Rachita, Sr Gyne, SGM Hospital Mangalpuri Delhi, who deposed as PW-5, had conducted the medical examination of the child victim. In her examination in chief, she deposed that the hymen of the victim was found intact and that no external injury was seen on the exposed part of the body.

8. Thechildvictiminherstatement,underSection164oftheCrPC, stated that on 13.05.2014, her father removed her underwear and also removed his underwear. He was about to insert his fingers inside her private parts, when nani saw them and threatened her father. Her father on an earlier occasion had done the same – inserted his fingers inside her private part. She further stated that when nani threatened her father, he ran away.

9. Thechildprosecutrix–examinedasPW-6–statedthatherfather removed her underwear and also removed his unde