This is an appeal arising out of conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant under the provisions of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

2. The appellant is the maternal uncle of the mother of the prosecutrix and the accused and the prosecutrix are related to each other. By the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2017, the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act and Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nagpur (Trial Court) has held in Special Child Protection Case No.151 of 2014 that the appellant did commit offence under Section 6 read with Section 5(n) of the POCSO Act and thereby sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/.

3. As per the prosecution case, the incident occurred on 23.07.2014 at about 10.00 a.m. when the prosecutrix went to the house of the appellant (accused). The said house was adjacent to the house of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix had allegedly gone there for bringing vegetables. But, when the prosecutrix went inside the house, the appellant suddenly caught hold of her hand, pressed her mouth, dragged her inside the house and then took her into the store room where he forcibly indulged in sexual intercourse with her.

4. The prosecutrix then immediately went back to her house and disclosed the incident to her father, who in turn informed the mother of the prosecutrix on phone. Thereupon, the mother of the prosecutrix came home and took the prosecutrix to the police for lodging of complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered against the appellant in Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur for offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and the POCSO Act. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and seizure as well as spot panchanamas were conducted in the presence of panch witnesses by the Investigating Officer (PW9). On the basis of the investigation and chargesheet submitted by the police, the trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the I.P.C. and Section 6 read with Section 5(n) and (p) of the POCSO Act.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses. These included, PW1 Prosecutrix, PW2 Mother of the prosecutrix, PW3 Doctor who examined the prosecutrix, PW4 Doctor who examined the appellant (accused), PW5 Maternal uncle of the prosecutrix as well as panch witness for seizure of clothes and blood, PW6 Father of the prosecutrix, PW7 Headmistress of the school attended by the prosecutrix, PW8 Maternal grandfather of the prosecutrix and panch witness on spot panchanama, PW9 Investigating Officer who recorded the complaint and conducted the spot panchanama and PW11 Headmistress of primary school attended by the prosecutrix. Documentary evidence was also brought on record by the prosecution in the form of medical records as well as F.S.L. report and school leaving certificate to prove the age of the prosecutrix.

6. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court found that the prosecution had successfully proved that the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident was less then eighteen years and that therefore, she was covered under the definition of “child” under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. It was also found by the trial Court that the medical evidence on record as also the evidence of the prosecutrix, corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses, conclusively proved the guilt of the appellant. On this basis, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the aforementioned manner. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present appeal has been filed.

7. Mr. A.Z. Gharde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the present case was a case of false implication because the appellant was a person related to the prosecutrix and her mother and that he used to repeatedly scold them for their misbehaviour and unacceptab