JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- I.d. to suffer further S.I. for 7 days by the Special Judge under POCSO Act, Gr. Bombay passed in Sessions Case No. 923 of 2013 vide Judgment and Order dated 27/11/2014. Hence, this appeal.

2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :

(i) It is the case of the prosecution that on 20/7/2013 one Mrs. Meena Fernandes lodged a complaint at the police station alleging therein that her grand-daughter i.e. victim studying in 3rd standard was residing with her and attending school.

(ii) On 19/7/2013 her mother had been to take the victim to her house, but the victim refused. Upon query made by the first informant, she disclosed that 8 days prior, she was sexually assaulted by Imran who was residing near the house of her paternal grand-mother. On the basis of this report, Crime No. 215 of 2013 was registered.

(iii) The statement of the victim was recorded by lady police officer. Her statement was also recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(iv) After completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed. The case is committed to Special Court. The case was registered as Sessions Case No. 923 of 2013. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.

3. Implicit reliance can be placed on the substantive evidence of the victim. At the time recording of evidence, the victim was 9 years old. She expressed her inability to give her date of birth, but has stated that she is 9 years old. She has deposed before the Court that initially, she was residing with her mother and every Sunday she used to visit her maternal grand-mother. That Imran was residing as neighbour of paternal grand-mother. It was a big family. She has uncle to whom she refers as Mamu and Chacha also. She has stated that she does not recollect as to whether, she knows Imran, neither name of her uncle nor the fact that she was taken to hospital. The witness was declared hostile. She was questioned by the Court. However, she gave evasive answers. She has resiled from her earlier statement. In answer to the last question she has stated that she wants to study and lead a good life.

4. P.W.2 Meena Fernandes has also turned hostile.

5. It is pertinent to note that the certificate Exh. 23 pertains to the medical examination of the victim. It indicates that the hymen was ruptured. The history was given to the doctor by the victim and her grand-mother. The remarks of the medical officer are as follows :

"Victim gives alleged history of sexual assault 8 days back by known person living in same house. Patient gives alleged history of sexual assault again two days later."

6. Perused the statement of the victim and her grand-mother recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the said statement, the victim has categorically narrated the sexual assault upon her committed by the present appellant. He used to threaten her of dire consequences. That she had disclosed to her mother, however, her mother thought that she is referring to some game and therefore, did not pay attention to it. In June her grand- mother had taken her to her house and admitted her in a different school and therefore, she felt that she could disclose her trauma to her grand-mother and after the said disclosure, her grand-mother had taken her to the police station. Statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded in the presence of the grand- mother i.e. P.W.2, as is seen from the statement. It therefore appears that the victim was pressurised to turn