In the instant case, the trial court convicted the accused on the basis of “X’s” testimony, in which she deposed that the accused took her inside the house on the pretext to give toffee, and inserted his private part into her private part. The trail court also relied on “X’s” Court statement, in which she identified the appellant to be the perpetrator of crime. The Court rejected the plea of the appellant that he was not the perpetrator of crime, on the ground that he failed to establish the plea of ‘alibi’ and give plausible explanation for his false implication. The Court noted that “X” aged about five years is not expected to level serious allegation of rape against an innocent one who lived in her neighbourhood. The Court further noted that no strong reasons exist to disbelieve the testimony of child witness, and that for petty altercation X’s parents cannot be imagined to concoct false allegations which have reflection upon the chastity of their little child.
The Court concluded that ocular testimony of the prosecutrix is in consonance with the medical evidence, which lends credence to X’s version of sexual assault, and stated that ‘since the perpetrator of the crime was known to the victim and belonged to their native place, he deserves no leniency particularly when the victim was aged about five years like his daughter”. The Court stated that the impugned judgment based on fair and proper appreciation of the evidence supported by relevant judgments needs no intervention, and accordingly affirmed the decision of the trial Court, and awarded 10 years jail term to the accused for raping the girl child. Upender Mukhiya v. The State (NCT of Delhi), 2015 SCC OnLine
