The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 13th July 2016 passed by the learned Designated Judge under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act), Greater Mumbai in POCSO Special Case No. 486 of 2013, thereby convicting the appellant under sections, 452, 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month in respect of an offence punishable under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month in respect of an offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months in respect of an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. That the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months in respect of an offence punishable under section 4 of the POCSO Act. The appellant is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month in respect of an offence punishable under section 8 of the POCSO Act. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the trial Court. The said Judgment and Order dated 13th July 2016 is impugned herein.

2. Heard Ms. Pracheeta Rathod for the Appellant and Mr. Gangurde, the learned APP for the State. Perused the record.

3. The age of the victim girl was about 11 to 12 years on the date of incident and therefore the names of the victim girl and her close family members are not mentioned in the present Judgment, with a view to protect the identity of the victim girl and in consonance with the provisions of section 228(A) of the Indian Penal Code and section 33(7) of the POCSO Act and the detailed narration of facts mentioned in the first information report and in the statement of the victim is hereby avoided.

4. The prosecution case in brief is as under :

(i) The victim girl was aged about 11 to 12 years on the date of incident. The appellant was a friend of the father of the victim girl. He used to visit her house. That on 5-2-2013 when the victim girl was in her house with her younger brother aged about seven years, at about 2.00 p.m. the appellant came there. He gave five rupees to the brother of the victim girl and told him to go out and to have some snacks. By taking undue advantage of the situation, the appellant removed the clothes of the victim girl and despite her resistance, inserted his finger into her private part. That the appellant committed forcible penovaginal intercourse with the victim girl. He thereafter assured her of purchasing a new dress and also threatened her of dire-consequence, if she discloses the said fact to her mother or anybody else.

(ii) That on 8-2-2013, the appellant gave a phone call on the mobile phone of the mother (PW No. 2) of the victim girl and told her that he wanted to talk with the victim girl. Being suspicious about the appellant, the mother of the victim girl let her mobile phone switched on speaker mode and asked the victim girl (PW No. 1) to talk with the appellant without disclosing the fact that her mother is present nearby. That the appellant talked with victim girl whether she had disclosed the said incident to anybody and furth