The reliability of the victim's testimony, corroborative evidence, and the legal provisions of the POCSO Act were crucial in establishing the guilt of the appellant.

JUDGMENT

Mangesh S Patil, J. - This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act") and under Sections 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to punishments, the maximum of which is rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.35,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. The criminal law was set in motion by the respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as "victim") stated to be of 16 years and three months old on the date of lodging of the FIR on 28.03.2017. She alleges that she has been residing with her parents, two brothers and grandmother at village Parsamal, Taluka Shindkheda, District Dhule. Her date of birth is 15.08.2001. Her parents alongwith one of her brothers had gone to Selamba on 19.03.2017. She alongwith her grandmother and another brother were at home at Parsamal. She then alleges that on 24.03.2017, during afternoon hours, her grandmother had taken her brother Akash for medical treatment to a doctor. She was alone in the home. She bolted the backside door and was having meals in the front room. She alleges that at about 1.30 p.m., the appellant effected entry into the house by unbolting the backside door by putting the hand inside. When she questioned him as to how and why he had entered into the house in this manner, he pulled her to the inside room, disrobed her and committed rape at the point of knife. He also threatened her of dire consequences if the incident was disclosed. After the incident, he left from the backside door. She tried to raise hue and cry, but he had gagged her mouth during the incident and also threatened her because of which she was frightened. When her grandmother and brother came back and saw her dejected, the grandmother asked her the reason but she could not disclose anything. Her parents returned on 26.03.2017 and thereafter she started crying and narrated the incident to her parents. Since both of them and grandmother were unable to comprehend how to meet the situation as they were apprehensive of there being a social stigma, after giving some thought, they went to the Police Station on 28.03.2017 and lodged the report.

3. The offence was registered. The victim (PW1) was sent for medical examination. Her clothes were seized under seizure panchanama (Exh-22). The appellant was arrested. Even his clothes were seized under seizure panchanama (Exh-21). Samples were collected. A spot panchanama (Exh-28) was drawn. The samples were forwarded for chemical analysis and the reports were received. In due course of time, after conclusion of the investigation, PSI Potadar (PW8) submitted the chargesheet. A charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution led its evidence.

4. The defence of the appellant is mainly of total denial. I am using the word 'mainly' purposely inasmuch as in an extrajudicial confession made to Dr. Sonawane (PW5), who medically examined the appellant, he had narrated the history by saying that he was having an affair with the victim (PW1). He had entered the house as alleged and both of them had hugged each other though there was no sexual intercourse. However, during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has not come out with any such version and has merely asserted that he has been falsely implicated by the mother of the victim because of some monetary reasons. There is also an attempt by the defence to dispute the age of the victim (PW1).

5. At the end of the trial, the learned Special Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, concluded that the victim (PW1) was in