P.N. Deshmukh, J.

This appeal takes exception to judgment and order dated 27th of April, 2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in Sessions Trial No.16 of 2014, by which learned Trial Judge having considering provisions of Section 42 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which provides that the accused is liable to be punished only under such law which provides for punishment which is greater in degree and thus convicted appellant for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. According to the case of the prosecution, victim girl is aged 13 years. On 5th of March, 2014 at about 3 p.m., she had been to nearby barren land situated near her house, to answer the nature's call. At that time, appellant came from behind and forcibly took her behind the bush and on threatening her to be killed, made her lie on the ground and committed sexual assault on her. On her raising shouts, PW5 Mahadeo arrived on the spot and caught hold of the appellant who, on enquiry, disclosed his name as Mangesh Ambadas Palaspagar. In the meantime, labours who were working on the adjoining brick kiln also arrived on the spot and they had brought the appellant to Police Outpost at Chohotta where the occurrence report (Exh31) came to be recorded, on the basis of which the offence came to be registered vide Crime No.13/2004 at Police Station Dahihanda and was investigated by Rashmi Nandedkar, Sub Divisional Police Officer.

During the course of the investigation accused came to be arrested on 5th of March, 2014 and was sent for his medical examination. Similarly, prosecutrix was medically examined by PW6 Dr. Atul Mundada on 6th of March, 2014. During the course of investigation, spot panchanama was drawn and statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Clothes of the accused as well as that of victim were seized and on recording statements of material witnesses and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class.

3. In the course of time, the case came to be committed for trial before the learned Sessions Court. Charge was framed against the accused vide Exh.7 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2)(i), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 to which appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is that of total denial and of false implication. It is his case that at the time of incident, as the father of the victim was to pay amount to his father, which remained to be unpaid, the relations between his father and father of the victim were strained and on this appellant came to be falsely implicated by the victim on the say of her father.

4. To establish the Charge levelled against the appellant, the prosecution has in all examined seven witnesses and commenced its evidence by examining PW1 the prosecutrix who has proved report at Exh.31, PW2 Hemant Bhimrao Maturkar, PW3 Manik Dongre both witnesses, on seizure of clothes of the accused and on seizure of blood samples of the accused and the prosecutrix and the spot panchanama. However, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW4 Ramesh Pundlik Sardar, the father of the prosecutrix, PW5 Mahadeo Wasudeo Aalat, who had caught hold of the appellant on the spot, PW6 Dr