BRIJ LAL Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is directed against a judgment dated 24.11.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 119/2013 emanating from FIR No. 266/2013 PS Vasant Kunj (South) by which the appellant - Brij Lal was held guilty for committing offence under Sec. 6 POCSO Act. By an order dated 05.12.2014, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs.10,000.00.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as projected in the charge-sheet was that on 26.06.2013 at around 11.00 a.m. the appellant sexually assaulted the victim 'X' (assumed name) aged around four and a half years at his house. The incident was conveyed to the police and Daily Diary (DD) No. 60A (Ex.PW-1/A) came to be recorded on 29.06.2013 at 11.40 p.m. The investigation was assigned to W/SI Brahmo Devi who went to the spot. After recording the statement of victim's mother (Ex. PW-5/A), she lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Crimial P.C. statement. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. To bring home the appellant's guilt, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses in all and relied upon various documents. In 313 Crimial P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. The Trial Court committed grave error to base conviction on the testimonies of interested witnesses without independent corroboration. It overlooked vital infirmities and inconsistencies in the version narrated by PW-4 (the victim) and PW-5 (Indu) - her 'mother'. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that the victim is consistent throughout and no valid reasons exist to disbelieve her.