A.R. Joshi, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also heard learned APP for the State. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-accused challenging his conviction for offence punishable under section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act" and for offence under section 506 of IPC. For the offence under section 10 of the POCSO Act, he is sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. For offence under section 506 of IPC he is sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. As the trial Court had convicted the accused for aggravated sexual assault and awarded punishment under section 10 of the POCSO Act, no separate sentence was imposed under section 354 of IPC and also under section 8 of the POCSO Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that in the afternoon of 21st April, 2013 when the prosecutrix girl, then aged about 8 years, had come out of her house for collecting some leaves of a tree for playing, the accused called her in his room and closed the door from inside. He made the girl to sit on Sofa by the side. Then he told her to take his penis in her mouth. He also touched the breast of the child. He also gave threats to the child that if she would disclose the things to anybody, he would kill her family members. He also told the child to come to his house everyday and remove the clothes. It is also the case of the prosecution that PW 1 complainant, mother of the child searched for the child on that afternoon. She came out of the house and over heard what the accused was telling the child. She reached near the house of the accused after entering the compound of his house. According to said witness, she over heard that the accused was threatening the child of killing her family and also telling the child that the child should come to his house everyday and remove the clothes. On allegedly listening this, PW 1 pushed the door of house of the accused. It was opened by the accused. PW No. 1, saw her daughter prosecutrix sitting on the Sofa. She took the daughter back to her house and reported matter to her husband over telephone. Within 10 to 15 minutes husband of the complainant came home and on that evening the prosecutrix and her parents went to the police station. The complaint was lodged on that night. Initially, the offence was registered against the appellant for the offences under sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed.

3. During the trial, application is preferred by the prosecution for adding the charge of 'aggravated sexual assault' and it was alleged that the accused has committed an offence of aggravated sexual assault punishable under section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

4. Four prosecution witnesses were examined. PW No. 1 is the complainant, PW No. 2 is the victim child, then aged about 8 years, PW No. 3 is the panch witness and PW No. 4 is the Investigating Officer. Admittedly, there is no medical evidence as to the examination of either the prosecutrix girl or the appellant-accused.

5. The trial Court believed the story as narrated by the child. Virtually all the contents of the FIR have been narrated by the child during her substantive evidence before the Court. It is significant to note that the age of the prosecutrix girl PW No. 2 is eight years. She was not administered oath considering her understanding capacity as to the sanctity of the oath. Also the substantive evidence of PW No. 1 is in consonance with what is mentioned in the FIR. However, during the cross-examination of PW No. 1, the strained relations between the parties were brought on record. It is admitted position that the present appellant-accused is the landlord of the Chawl where in one of the rooms the parents of the victim girl reside as tenants. It was suggested during the cross-examinat