ALTAF AHMED @ RAHUL Vs. STATE (GNCTD OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal filed under Section 374(2) read with Section 383 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.11.2019 and order on sentence dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned ASJ-04, Special Judge: POCSO Act, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 43/2017 in respect of FIR No. 247/2016 registered under Sections 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act at P.S. Begumpur whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Further, vide order on sentence dated 10.12.2019, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years along with payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo SI for 30 days.

(2.) The brief facts, as noted by the trial court, are as follows:

(3.) Ms. Richa Dhawan, learned Standing Counsel, DHCLSC appearing on behalf of the appellant, has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the trial court failed to appreciate that the testimony of the child victim and her mother were not creditworthy as there were material improvements not only in the statements of the child victim but also, her mother Ms. 'RV'. It was also contended that the testimony of the child victim was also not creditworthy and admissible as the child victim was tutored. It was next contended that material witnesses were not examined. As per the prosecution case, although at the relevant time, the child victim was playing with her younger sisters but the sisters were not cited as witnesses. Also, the landlord of the premises was deliberately not cited as a witness. Lastly, it was also contended that there was no medical corroboration in as much as no blood stain or blood spot was observed on the underwear of the child victim during her medical examination.