1. By the present appeal, the appellant is challenging judgment and order of conviction dated 15.1.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Child Protection Case No.63/2015.

2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as, “the accused” for the sake of brevity) is convicted for offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act”) and is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

The accused is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

The accused is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 506 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

Learned Judge below directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently and directed that the accused is entitled for set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the accused is in jail since 11.1.2015.

3. The prosecution case starts with oral report (Exhibit 17) by victim (PW2). The oral report of the victim was recorded by a Woman Police Constable Chitra in presence of Assistant Police Inspector Shri Dilip Manohar Rathod (PW8) who was attached in the year 2016 as duty officer at Pachpaoli Police Station. The oral report was forwarded to him after registration of crime and accordingly he registered the crime vide Crime No.11/2015 for offences under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(a), 4, 7, and 8 of the POCSO Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

4. In short, as per the oral report (Exhibit 17) of the victim, at the relevant time he was school going boy and aged about 14 years. He used to reside with his mother and elder brother. His mother works in a private company to manage family. Sandip Pande, the accused is also resident of vicinity wherein the victim is resident and, therefore, the victim was knowing the accused. According to the report, prior to 5-6 months of lodging of the report, the accused by giving threat of knife took him to a public lavatory and after removing his as well as the victim's clothes asked the victim to touch the private Part- of the accused and, thereafter, he sodomized the victim. After the act of sodomy, again a threat was extended by the accused that the victim should not disclose the said fact to anybody. The oral report states that thereafter many a time the victim was threatened by the accused not to disclose the fact, otherwise he will be defamed in the society and used to demand money from him.

5. It is further stated in the First Information Report that on 4.1.2015 the accused obstructed the victim and demanded money from him. Therefore, the victim stole money from the locker of his mother in the house to the tune of Rs.400/-. However, on 9.1.2015 when the mother checked her locker, she noticed shortfall in the amount and, therefore, made enquiry with the victim. On that, the victim got frightened and, therefore, to get truth from the victim, his mother slapped him and, thereafter, the victim disclosed atrocities committed on him by the accused.

6. Dilip Rathod (PW8), after registration of the crime, visited the spot of the incident which was shown by the victim. It was a public lavatory at Bhoslewadi, Motibagh, Nagpur. He prepared panchnama of the spot (Exhibit 15) in presence of Chandrakant Pradeep Gajbhiye (PW1). He also arrested the accused under arrest panchnama (Exhibit 59). Further investigation was handed over to Assistant Polic