A conviction in sexual assault cases must be based on credible evidence that establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt; uncertainties and inconsistencies undermine the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment dated 08.05.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’) and the order on sentence dated 27.07.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order on sentence’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC No. 242/2018 arising out of FIR No. 1378/2015 (‘FIR’).

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ convicted the appellant of the offence under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) and Section 18 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’). By the impugned order on sentence, the learned ASJ sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years alongwith payment of fine for a sum of ₹10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 6 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act. For the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, the learned ASJ sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for a period of 05 years alongwith payment of fine for a sum of ₹1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months along with payment of fine for a sum of ₹500 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC . All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Succinctly stated, the FIR was registered on a complaint given by the mother of the prosecutrix. It is alleged that on 17.10.2014, the mother of the prosecutrix learnt that the appellant had sexually assaulted her daughter for the past three months. The appellant is stated to be the fuffa of the prosecutrix. It is alleged that on 03.09.2015 when the prosecutrix was playing in the park situated near her house, the appellant touched her hips. It is further alleged that when the appellant had come to the house of the prosecutrix, he removed the clothes of the prosecutrix and touched his genitals to the prosecutrix’s private parts.

4. Consequently, FIR No. 1378/2015 dated 22.09.2015 was registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar for offences under Sections 376/506 of the IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act.

5. The statement of the complainant under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was recorded on 23.09.2015. Subsequently, upon the conclusion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed.

6. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.03.2016 proceeded to frame charges against the appellant for the offences under Section 10 and Section 6 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act and Section 511/376/506 of the IPC .

7. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including PW-1 (mother of the prosecutrix), PW-3 (father of the prosecutrix), PW-4 (grandfather of the prosecutrix), PW-5 (guard), PW-8 (uncle of the prosecutrix) and PW-9 (aunt of the prosecutrix).

8. The appellant denied the allegations levelled against him in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. He asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motives. The appellant claimed that the present case is motivated and has been filed on the instructions of his ex-wife/bua of the prosecutrix who wanted to gain a share in his father’s property. He further claimed that the complaint had only been filed as a counterblast to the complaint filed by the appellant’s father against the appellant’s ex-wife/bua of the prosecutrix.

9. The learned ASJ, by the impugned judgment, convicted the appellant of the offences under Section 10 of the POCSO Actand Section 18 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC . It was noted that on being specifically asked, the prosecutrix stated that the appellant had tried to touch his penis to the victim’s genitals. The prosecutrix deposed that the appella