SOFYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 10.12.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 176/2014 arising out of FIR No. 756/2014 PS Prashant Vihar whereby the appellant-Sofyan was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sec. 10 of POCSO Act and Sec. 354 IPC. By an order dated 15.12.2015, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine Rs. 5,000.00 under Sec. 10 POCSO Act and Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine Rs. 5,000.00 under Sec. 354 IPC. The sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 007.2014 in the evening, at the changing and shower room near swimming pool, Bal Bharti Public School, Sector-14 Rohini, Delhi, the appellant committed aggravated sexual assault upon the victim 'X' (changed name) aged around eight years by inserting his hand into her panty with sexual intent. On return to home, 'X' narrated the incident to her mother. On the next day, complaint was lodged with the Principal of the school. The Investigation officer after recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-2/A), lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Crimial P.C. statement. The appellant was arrested and medically examined. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses. In 313 Crimial P.C. statement, the accused denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction as mentioned previously.

(3.) Appellant's counsel urged that the impugned judgment is based on conjectures and surmises. Material infirmities and inconsistencies emerging in the statements of the prosecution witnesses have been overlooked. No independent/public witness was associated at any stage of the investigation. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that no sound reasons exist to disbelieve the minor victim of sexual assault.