A minor's testimony, corroborated by witnesses, substantiates convictions for sexual assault under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the necessity for strong penalty considerations due to the victim's age.

JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Special Case (POCSO) No.43/2017 dated 23.06.2018.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under:

That on 14.07.2017 at 5-00 p.m. when the victim minor girl aged below 12 years was proceeding to Revansiddeshwar hillock from Gonavi village to buy sugar, the accused who was proceeding on motorbike assuring her to drop her near the shop, took her on motorcycle towards Ratkal canal and near the land of Deshmukh near a neem tree, subjected her to sexual assault by dragging her hands, pressed lips and abused her in filthy language as well as threatened her in this regard. The victim has lodged a complaint and on the basis of this complaint, the investigating officer registered the case and issued FIR. Subsequently, he investigated the matter and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 , 506, 354 of IPC and Sections 8 , 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The accused was arrested and subsequently, he was enlarged on bail. After submission of the charge-sheet, the learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance of the offences and the accused appeared though his counsel and prosecution papers were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The charge under Sections 504 , 506 and 354 of IPC and under Section 10 of POCSO Act was framed against the accused and same is read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and also relied on 7 documents marked at Exs.P.1 to P.7. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial. The accused has not lead any defence evidence in support of his contention. 5. After having heard the arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. However, he has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 354 of IPC as well as under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing on sentence, imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default sentence for the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act read with Section 354 of IPC. He has also convicted the accused for the offence under Section 506 of IPC by imposing imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.25,000/-.

6. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused is before this Court by way of this appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. Perused the records.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has erroneously convicted the accused. It is also asserted that due to animosity, a false complaint was lodged and he would further assert that the learned Sessions Judge has ignored the fact that the appellant was arrested earlier, but he was later on fixed. He would