Vibhu Bakhru JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The appellant impugns a judgment dated 25.02.2017, whereby he was convicted of committing an offence punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter 'POCSO Act') - for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault. He also impugns an order dated 25.03.2017, whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of ` 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.
2. It is the prosecution's case that on 30.09.2013 at about 07:00 a.m., the appellant had met the victim, a girl aged ten years at the material time (hereinafter referred to as 'the prosecutrix'). She had gone to the ration shop to purchase rusk. The appellant was employed as a mason and was residing in a room near the prosecutrix's home. He was acquainted with the prosecutrix for about one year and six months prior to that date. The appellant asked her to accompany him, however, she refused. The appellant, thereafter, threatened her and she got scared and proceeded along with him. He took her to Shashi Garden and locked her inside a room. He came back to the room at about 12:00 midnight and forcibly removed her clothes and raped her (he inserted his penis in her vagina). He forced himself on her twice in the intervening night of 30.09.2013 and 01.10.2013.
3. The appellant left the room next day but locked the prosecutrix inside. He returned at about 08:00 p.m. and offered her food, which she refused. During the night, he once again raped her. On the day thereafter, he shifted her to another room nearby. And thereafter, at about 03:00 pm, he put the prosecutrix on a rickshaw and gave money to the rickshaw puller with the given direction to drop her near Ashok Nagar Metro Station. The rickshaw puller dropped her there and she returned back home on her own on 02.10.2013.
4. The mother of the prosecutrix had filed a report on 01.10.2013 with PS New Ashok Nagar. She had said that her daughter (the prosecutrix), who was about ten years old, had left home at about 07:30 a.m. to go to a nearby shop to buy rusk but had not returned. She stated that she and her family members had tried to find her but their search was in vain. She apprehended that her daughter had been lured by some person and was abducted. On the basis of the said information, an FIR was registered-FIR bearing No. 484, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 'IPC') with PS New Ashok Nagar (Ex. PW1/A).
5. The prosecution established its case by examining twelve witnesses.
6. ASI Zahid Hussain was examined as PW1. He testified that on 01.10.2013, he was working as a Duty Officer at PS New Ashok Nagar. On that day at about 05:30 a.m., Ct. Dinesh had produced a rukka sent by SI Mahesh and on the basis of the same, he had got the FIR registered. SI Mahesh was examined as PW8. He had testified that on 01.10.2013, he was posted at PS New Ashok Nagar and the complainant (the mother of the prosecutrix who was examined as PW2) had come to the police station and made a complaint stating that her daughter, aged 10 years, was missing since 30.09.2013. He stated that he recorded the complaint (Ex. PW2/A), prepared a rukka (Ex. PW8/A) and handed it over to the Duty Officer for registration of the FIR. He stated that he searched for the missing girl but could not find any clue. He testified that on 02.10.2013, he received information from the family of the prosecutrix that she had returned home. On receipt of the said information, he went to the house of the prosecutrix and took the prosecutrix and her mother to LBS Hospital. SI Meenakshi was also called there. The doctor had exa........