R.B. DEO, J.

1. The appellant is assailing the judgment and order dated 21-11-2017 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Special (POCSO) Case 2/2017, by and under which the appellant-accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to payment of fine of Rs. 2,500/- and is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ("POCSO Act" for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to payment of fine of Rs. 2,500/-.

2. P.W. 1 victim was a 10th standard student of Government Ashram School at Bhadbhidi, Tahsil - Chamorshi, District - Gadchiroli. The accused was a Mathematic Teacher working on honorary basis. The incident occurred on 19-10-2016. It is not in dispute that the victim was answering the Hindi subject paper and the accused was the Invigilator. The version of the victim is that when she was answering the Hindi paper, the accused sat beside her and touched her breast. The victim assumed that the touch was accidental. The accused then pressed her thigh, yet the victim did not react. The accused again pressed the breast of the victim, who started crying and leaving the answer- sheet in the table went to her room in the hostel. She disclosed the incident to Smt. Barsagade (P.W. 3), the lady Superintendent of the hostel, who disclosed the incident to the other Teachers and the Headmaster. As asked by the Headmaster (P. W. 2), the victim penned her version of the incident (Exhibit 17). The Headmaster (P. W. 2) lodged report at Ghot Police Station. On the basis of the said report offence punishable under Section 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act was registered against the accused. Upon culmination of the investigation, charge-sheet for offence punishable under Section 354A of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act was filed in the Court of Sessions Judge, Chamorshi.

The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exhibit 14) for offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 9(f) of the POCSO Act against the accused. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law. The defence as is discernible from the trend and tenor of the cross-examination and the written statement submitted under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is of total denial and false implication. The prosecution examined five witnesses including the victim. The accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, as afore stated. The edifice of the prosecution case is constructed entirely on the testimony of the victim. It has come in evidence that along with the victim seventeen students of Class 10 were appearing for the examination. Concededly, the Investigating Officer, for reasons inexplicable, has made no enquiry with any of the students who took the examination with the victim. The Investigating Officer did not record the statement of any student who was present in the class room when the incident allegedly occurred.

3. The leaned Counsel for the accused Shri A.K. Bhangde would submit that while there is no quarrel with the proposition that the conviction can rest solely on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix, the testimony must necessarily be implicitly reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring. Shri A.K. Bhangde would submit that if the evidence of the prosecutrix is not of sterling quality and if the evidence is not entirely reliable, it would be extremely hazardous to base the conviction on her sole testimony. Shri A.K. Bhangde would emphasis that the investigation is ineffective and incompetent at best and unfair at worst. It is indubitable, that the police did not make any enquiry with the victim, is the submission. It does not appear to be in dispute that the police did not r