1. The appellant herein has challenged his conviction under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs.5000/- imposed upon him by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.07.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur (trial Court) in Special POCSO Case No. 218/2016.

2. The prosecution case is that the complainant Sarika (PW1) lodged a report against the appellant in Police Station on 18.06.2016 stating that on the same day when she was watching television at home at about 4 p.m., her son (one of the victims and hereinafter referred to as “victim no.1”) had gone to her sister’s adjoining house for playing. When she went there, she found that her son was playing with his friend (the other victim in the present case and hereinafter referred to as “victim no.2”), who was the son of the neighbor Bharti (PW3). It was claimed that when the complainant PW1 went again to see her son, upon opening the door she found that her son was lying on the bed with his pant down and that his aforesaid friend was sitting on him and he had also removed his pant. This shocked the complainant PW1 and she asked her son’s friend (victim no.2) as to who had taught him to do such an act, upon which the victim no.2 stated that the appellant had taken him to his house to play mobile game and that he had committed anal sex with him. When the complainant PW1 asked her son (victim no.1), he also allegedly told her that the appellant had committed such an act with him and that too many times over a period of time. Thereafter, the complainant PW1 called the mother of the victim no.2 (Bharti) i.e. PW3 and narrated the incident to her, upon which both the ladies went to the house of the appellant and told the said facts to the mother of the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant was given a beating. The complainant PW1 called police by telephone upon which the Police undertook investigation and registered first information report (FIR) on the same day i.e. 18.06.2016 against the appellant under Section 377 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5(l) (m) and 6 of the POCSO Act. Upon completion of investigation, the Police submitted charge sheet and the Court framed charge against the appellant on 17.10.2016 for having committed offences under Section 377 of the IPC as also Section 5 (l) and (m) of the POCSO Act. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. PW1 was the complainant, PW2 was victim no.1, PW2 was Bharti (mother of victim no.2), PW4 was the Doctor who had examined the victims, PW5 was the panch witness for seizure of clothes of the appellant, PW6 was the Police Officer who recorded the complaint/report of the complainant PW1, PW7 was the lady Police Officer in whose presence statements of the two victims were recorded and PW8 was the investigating officer in the present case. Victim no.2 was not examined by the prosecution as a witness, although his statement was recorded by the Police.

3. When the evidence brought by the prosecution against the appellant was put to him while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant claimed that the witnesses had deposed against him due to a dispute between the complainant PW1 and his family. The victims had been medically examined and their medical examination report along with forensic reports were also on record before the trial Court. On the basis of the evidence and material on record, the trial Court found that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and on that basis, by the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

4. Mr. R.P. Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the prosec