The court emphasized that the clear testimony of the child victim, supported by corroborative medical and DNA evidence, suffices to establish the appellant's guilt under the POCSO Act.

2. The criminal investigation proceeded in the context of an incident that statedly occurred on 31.08.2013 at about 12.30 P.M. The first information about the incident came to be recorded through DD no.27A (Ex. PW11A) regarding commission of rape of a minor girl. FIR No. 327/2013 (Ex. PW4/A) under Sections 376/377/342 IPC came to be registered at PS. Jait Pur on the statement of the mother of the child victim, who stated that her daughter was playing in the gali when she heard her crying. She came outside the house to find the child victim weeping and saw blood on her left leg. On further probe, she found blood coming out of her anus. On being inquired, her daughter disclosed that one bhaiya had called her inside his room, bolted the door and thereafter removed his undergarment as well as her undergarment. He inserted his penis into her anus on which she felt pain and started crying. Thereafter, the said bhaiya had left. The name of that accused bhaiya was later revealed as Murshid i.e., the present appellant.

3. On chargesheet being filed, charges were framed against the appellant under Section 6 of POCSO Act read with Section 376(2)(i) IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses in total, the primary being the child victim, her mother and father as PW-6, 7 & 8 respectively. MLC of the child victim was exhibited as Ex.PW-2/A through Dr Vinod Bhivsane, Senior Resident, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, AIIMS Hospital. The FSL report was exhibited as Ex.PW-13/A through Ms. Seema Nain, Assistant Director (Biology), FSL, Rohini. The age of the child victim was proved through the Primary Teacher (PW15) at the school where the child victim was studying. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant claimed false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment, contended that though the prosecution has relied on the FSL report and in particular, on the undergarment of the child victim but the testimony of the mother would reveal that the child was not wearing the underwear, which the mother saw in the child victim’s hand. Further, the said underwear was not even put to the child victim for identification.

It is next contended that the identity of the appellant could not be conclusively established as neither of the parents of the child victim identified the appellant during their deposition. In this backdrop, the appellant’s arrest also becomes doubtful as he was arrested at the instance of the father of the child victim, according to the deposition of Ex. SI Narender Kumar (PW10).

It was further contended that on the day when both the parents of the child victim were examined, the accused was not even represented through the legal counsel appointed on his behalf which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

6. Learned APP for the State, duly assisted by the learned counsel appointed by DHCLSC to represent the victim, on the other hand, defended the impugned judgment. It is submitted that the incident statedly took place on 31.08.2013 at about 12.15 PM, rukka was prepared at 2.30 PM and the child victim was medically examined at 03.02 PM and at which time the underwear of the victim was seized as noted in the MLC. Attention is drawn to the testimony of WSI Priyanka, IO of the case, examined as PW-14, who deposed that she had