DINESH TIWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated 10th May, 2016 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act') and Section 376(f) IPC and the order on sentence dated 18th May, 2016 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 376(f) IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for Dinesh Tiwari submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he had given money to the mother of the victim who did not return it. Mother of the victim in her cross-examination admitted that on the day of the incident, since Saloni was not in the house, she took the key with her, thus, the prosecution has failed to prove how Dinesh Tiwari got the key of the house. No foreign material was found in the nail clipping of the appellant. The appellant was arrested from the spot which falsifies the prosecution case because if he would have committed the alleged act, he would not have remained present at the spot and would have fled away. There is contradiction in the testimony of the mother of the victim with regard to insertion of finger or penis. As per the statement of mother of the victim, she made the first call to her brother who called the PCR van, however, he has not been cited as a witness.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of testimony of the victim (PW-2) and her mother (PW-4) who are the material witnesses duly corroborated by the MLC of the victim which shows blood on her vagina, cervix and clothes and finger marks on her face. The presence of the appellant at the place of incident is not disputed.