JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. directed against the judgment dated 15.05.2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane in Special Case (POCSO) No. 61 of 2018. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has held the Appellant guilty of offences punishable under Section 376 and 354(A)(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and has sentenced him as under:

(i) Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5000/- i.d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5000/- i.d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 354(1) (A) IPC.

(iii) Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5000/- i.d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012

(iv) Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5000/- i.d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The crime against the Appellant was registered pursuant to the First Information Report lodged by PW1- mother of the victim(PW2). PW1 had alleged that on 13.12.2017 at about 12.00 a.m. she heard her daughter crying. She was complaining of pain in her vagina. When questioned, her daughter narrated that whenever she and her friends used to go to play in the room of the Appellant, he used to give them chocolates. The Appellant used to send her friends out, and then latch the door from inside and touch and insert his finger in her private parts. The first informant confirmed that there was an injury on the private parts of the victim. She informed her husband about the incident and lodged the FIR (Exhibit 17) on 16.12.2017.

3. Upon registration of the Crime, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the victim girl (PW2). He conducted the scene of offence panchanama (Exh.30) in presence of PW4 Roshan Belo say and PW4 Santosh Morey. He referred the victim girl for medical examination . She was examined by PW8 Dr. Nandini Deshmukh, a gynecologist at Thane Civil Hospital. On completing the investigation, chargesheet came to be filed.

4. Charge was framed against the Appellant for offences under Section 376, Section 354(1) (i) Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence of the Appellant was of total denial. He had claimed that there was a quarrel between him and the first informant over leakage of water from his toilet. He claimed he has been falsely implicated since he had not acceded to the request of the first informant to repair the toilet. The Appellant examined DW1 Rajkumar More to establish the plea of alibi. Upon considering the ocular as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Judge held the Appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Being aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, the Appellant has preferred this appeal.

5. Heard Mr. Chalke, learned Counsel for the Appellant. He submitted that there is considerable delay in lodging the FIR. He submitted that the evidence of the victim does not inspire confidence and is not supported by medical evidence. He further submitted that the prosecution has not examined material witnesses and that conviction cannot be sustained in view of inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the victim. He submits that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of DW1 and take note of the plea of alibi raised by the Appellant. He submits that this is a clear case of false implication due to previous enmity.

6. Sh