Conviction based solely on inconsistent and uncorroborated testimonies of minors is unsustainable, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Sections 415 (2) and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , the appellant, the sole accused, in S.C. No. 932/2017 on the file of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 , Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, challenges the conviction entered, and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 354 , 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC ) and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2013 (the PoCSO Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 03.11.2017 between 07:30 PM and 08:00 PM near Sati Mandir, Aram Bagh, Paharganj, the appellant/accused committed rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault on PW3 and PW4, who were aged about seven years and six years respectively. On the next day, i.e., 04.11.2017, a PCR call was received at Police Station Paharganj vide DD No. 14A, Ext. PW17/A, regarding the incident, pursuant to which PW17 and PW19, the Sub Inspectors, reached the aforesaid place where they met PW3 and PW4 as well as their parents. The accused was also present, as he was held by members of the public. The accused was handed over to the police. PW19 recorded the FIS of PW2, that is, Ex. PW2/A. Based on the same, Crime No. 329/2017 was registered, that is, Ex. PW5/A FIR by PW5 ASI. On completion of investigation, charge sheet/final report was submitted before the court by PW19 alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 5 of the PoCSO Act. After receiving the FSL result, i.e., Ext. PW19/F, a supplementary charge sheet was also filed.

3. The accused on being produced before the trial court was served with copies of the chargesheet and the documents in compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.. As per order dated 09.01.2018, a charge under section 376 IPC and Section 5 of the PoCSO Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

4. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 19 were examined and Exts. PW1/A-G, PW2/A-C, PW2/1, PW3/A, PW4/A, PW5/A- B, PW6/A-B, PW11/A-E, PW 12/A-B, PW14/A, PW15/A, PW16/A-B, PW17/A, PW18/A-C, PW19/A-D, DA, DB, E-G, PW19/1-3, Mark A to D, Ex PA - P4 were marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the case. According to him, there were disputes between him and PW8, the father of PW3, regarding encroachment and parking rehri in front of his house/ temple as the latter used to take rehri on a daily basis from one Danish and Sultan. He had given a complaint to the police against the said two persons regarding the parking of rehri/encroachment. Hence, Danish and Sultan, in connivance with the parents of PW3, have falsely implicated him in the present case.

5. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr. P.C., the accused, was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2024, found the accused guilty of the offences puni