The testimony of a child victim can be adequate to support a conviction if corroborated by consistent secondary evidence and medical findings.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 16.07.2016 passed by ASJ - 01, Rohini District Courts, whereby the appellant was convicted for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child victim - an offence punishable under S.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter the ''POCSO Act''). He was also convicted under S.376/342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter the '' IPC '').

2. The appellant also seeks to challenge the order on sentence dated 19.07.2016, whereby the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of fourteen years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for committing the offence punishable under S.6 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under S.342 of the IPC with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one week. All sentences were to run concurrently. Additionally, the ld. ASJ directed the Secretary, DLSA, North West Dist., to grant compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the child victim for her welfare and rehabilitation.

3. The appellant was prosecuted pursuant to registration of an FIR bearing FIR No. 577/2014 under S.376/342 of the IPC , registered with PS Keshav Puram. The said FIR was registered on 07.09.2014 at the instance of the mother of the victim. The victim's mother stated that, at about 8:00 pm, she sent the prosecutrix - a girl aged about eleven years, to the shop (downstairs) to call her grand - father for dinner and after ten - fifteen minutes, her daughter came back weeping. She stated that the prosecutrix informed her that the accused had pulled the prosecutrix into a room and bolted the door. He made her lie on the ground. She stated that the accused then gagged the mouth of the child victim with his hand and raped her. She stated that she also noticed blood stains on the clothes of the prosecutrix. After coming to know of the alleged incident, she went downstairs to accost the assailant along with the prosecutrix who pointed towards the accused as the person who raped her. She stated that the accused managed to run away on seeing her and the prosecutrix.

4. The accused was apprehended and thereafter, charges under S.342 of the IPC and S.5(m) of the POCSO Act were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. The prosecution examined seventeen witnesses to prove its case.

5. After evaluating the evidence the Trial Court, by impugned judgment, held that the appellant (accused) was guilty of the offences punishable under S.376 and S.342 of the IPC and S.6 of the POCSO Act and accordingly, convicted him.

6. The appellant contended that the statement made by the prosecutrix is not sufficient to substantiate the allegation that the appellant had committed the offence. The appellant also contended that even the MLC did not record any fresh external injury. The appellant further contended that the Trial Court has erred in not appreciating that the appellant was a tenant residing on the ground floor and the family of the prosecutrix, who were the landlords of the premises wanted to evict the appellant. Since he was not vacating the premises, he was falsely implicated. He contended that the mother of the prosecutrix had tutored the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the