The court confirmed the conviction and the sentence of the Appellant under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a four-year-old child, and imposed maximum punishment considering the grave depravity and ramifications of the crime.

JUDGMENT

NITIN JAMDAR,J. - The learned Special Judge, Greater Mumbai, by judgment and order dated 15 June 2017, has convicted the Appellant under the offences punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and has sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed this criminal appeal.

2. The grandmother of the survivor child (the child) resided at Bhandup (W), Mumbai. Her daughter and four-year-old granddaughter were residing with her as her son-in-law (father of the child) was missing since an accident. Her daughter was working in a mall, and her granddaughter was studying in a school at Bhandup. She used to drop her granddaughter at the school and used to bring her back. The school timing was from 1.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. On 9 December 2014, when she picked the child from the school, her hair was disheveled, and her clothes were in disarray. When the grandmother asked, the child told her that Chhote Sir in the school took her to the toilet and inserted his penis in her private part and navel and her mouth, licked her private parts, and she was not able to urinate. The child complained of stomach pain. The child did not go to school on 10 December 2014 and refused to go to school on 11 December 2014. On the next day, i.e. 12 December 2014, the grandmother took the child to Savitribai Phule Hospital and informed the doctor that the child was subjected to sexual assault and had stomach pain. The doctor advised her to go to Rajawadi Hospital, but since her daughter came late and since the OPD was closed, the grandmother came back. The child was given home remedies. The grandmother feared that her family would be defamed, so she did not go to the police station or the school. The incident came to be known and on 16 December 2014, one shopkeeper called her and asked her to come to one place. On 17 December 2014, when she intended to go to the police station, the police themselves arrived at her house. She stated to the police regarding sexual assault on the child, and on this statement, police registered C.R.No.454/2014 for the offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Act.

3. The accused was arrested. His disclosure statement was recorded, and recovery panchanama of his clothes was conducted. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the child and witnesses, and collected the birth certificate. The child showed the spot, and spot panchanama was conducted. The Investigating Officer sent the child and the accused for a medical examination. The Investigating Officer sent the clothes of the child and the accused for chemical analysis. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed.

4. The learned Special Judge framed the charge against the Appellant for the offences under sections 6 and 10 of the Act of 2012. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. The child (P.W.1), Informant/grandmother of the child (P.W.2); Bhagwan Kisan Bodhade, Panch (P.W.3) of Disclosure panchanama Exh.12; Mother of the child (P.W.4);Dr.N.B.Kumar, (P.W.5) Medical Officer, who had examined the child and the accused; Isak Zibrail Choudhary, (P.W.6) Panch of spot panchanama at Exh.24; Dr.C.B.Sane, (P.W.7) Senior Medical Officer attached to Savitribai Phule Hospital, Bhandup; PSI G.P.Londhe, (P.W.8), First Investigating Officer; and PI B.P.Suryavanshi, (P.W.9) the Second Investigating Officer.

6. The defence of the Appellant was of total denial and false implication. The Appellant examined four defence witnesses viz. Kusum Fatebahadur Singh (D.W.1), a teacher in the school; Dhananjay Tribhuvan Singh (D.W.2), Secretary and Principal of the school; Madhuri Ishwar Pradhan (D.W.3), a peon in the school; and Ranjana Chandramani Gavai (D.W.4), a peon in the school.

7. The learned Special Judge, after evaluating the evidence on record and after considering the arguments, concluded that the