1. The appellant herein has been convicted under Section 376 (2) (i) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/. The Sessions Court, Chandrapur (Trial Court) has, by the impugned judgment and order, imposed aforesaid conviction and sentence on the appellant in Special (Child) Case No.30/2015.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 08.01.2015, prosecutrix (PW4), victim in the present case, was playing under a tree near the house of the appellant (accused) which was under construction. When the friends of the prosecutrix went to answer call of nature, the appellant lured her into the said house by offering her Rs.2/. Friends of the prosecutrix (PW4) returned and upon hearing the voice, they went to the house and peeped in from a hole in the wall, where they saw that knicker of the prosecutrix (PW4) had been removed and the appellant was sleeping on her body. One of the friends i.e. Sneha (PW5) then went to the house of Shila Meshram (PW2) and told her about the incident whereupon Shila (PW2) went near the house of the appellant and she saw through a hole in the wall that the appellant was committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix (PW4).

3. The said Shila (PW2) then took the prosecutrix (PW4) to her mother i.e. the first informant; Diksha Meshram (PW1) and told her about the incident. It was the case of the prosecution that since father of the prosecutrix was not at home, report pertaining to the said incident was not immediately lodged by the mother Diksha (PW1) and that the oral report was submitted on the next day i.e. on 09.01.2015 at Police Station, Sindewahi, which is the reason for late registration of the offence against the appellant.

4. After registration of the offence, the prosecutrix (PW4) was sent for medical examination and she was examined by Dr.Jaya Bhongle (PW9). Clothes of the prosecutrix (PW4) were seized and sent for anlaysis. Police recorded statements of witnesses and on the basis of the same as also the medical examination report, the police submitted chargesheet and the appellant was made to face the trial.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses, out of whom the material witnesses were Diksha (PW1) i.e. informant and mother of the prosecutrix, Shila Meshram (PW2), neighbour and eye witness to the incident, Narendra Gahane (PW3), Police Patil of village, prosecutrix herself (PW4), Sneha Meshram (PW5), friend of the prosecutrix who was also eye witness, Dr. Jaya Bhongle (PW9) and API Bansu Kodape (PW10) the investigating officer.

6. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court found that the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and accordingly, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment and order. The present appeal has been filed challenging the same.

7. Mr. M. N. Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant by the trial Court was unsustainable because there was lack of evidence to prove the prosecution case. It was pointed out that there were material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the two alleged eye witnesses; Shila (PW2) and Sneha (PW5). It was further contended that the evidence of informant Diksha (PW1), when compared with the evidence of the aforesaid alleged eye witnesses, demonstrate material contradictions. It was further contended that the evidence of the prosecutrix shows that she was a tutored child witness and that the entire prosecution case was based on such tutored version given by the prosecutrix, who was only 6 years old. It was further contended that medical evidence on record also does not support the prosecution case as