The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborative evidence to support a conviction.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and order dtd. 17/01/2022, passed by learned Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, in Special Case No.65 of 2018. The Appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.354-A of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for three months. He was also convicted for VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE commission of offence punishable U/s.7 r/w. Sec. 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for six months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was acquitted from the charges of commission of offence punishable U/s.11 r/w. Sec. 12 of the POCSO Act.

2. The prosecution case is that the victim in this case was about 12 years of age. Her date of birth was 10/06/2006. The incident had occurred on 29/09/2018. On that day, at around 12.00p.m. the victim had gone to a sugarcane field. It is alleged that the appellant came from behind, took her in his arms and was trying to make her fall on the ground. She rescued herself and ran away. She met one woman from the village. Both of them came back. The victim's father was informed. On the next day, he went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. vide C.R.No.440 of 2018 at Karad Taluka police station. The investigation was carried out.

The spot panchanama was conducted. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The statement of the victim and her father were recorded U/s.164 of the Cr.p.c. by learned J.M.F.C., Karad and at the conclusion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed.

3. Heard Ms. Hema Whaval, learned appointed advocate for the Appellant, Shri. Agarkar, learned APP for the State/Respondent No.1 and Shri. Swapnil Ovalekar, learned appointed advocate for the Respondent No.2.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses including the victim, her father, the panchas for the spot panchanama and two police officers.

5. The defence of the appellant was of total denial. During trial, the victim and her father did not support the prosecution case. They were declared hostile. However, learned Trial Judge relied on their statements given before the Magistrate and before the police and relying on those statements, convicted and sentenced the appellant.

6. The victim is examined as PW-2. She has deposed that, her date of birth was 10/06/2006. She had gone to the police station on 30/09/2018. She had told the police that, on the previous day the appellant had taken her in his arms in an agriculture field. Her statement was recorded by J.M.F.C. at Karad. She accepted that her statement was read-over to her and explained to her and after that, she had put her signature on it. That statement recorded U/s.164 of the Cr.p.c. was produced on record at Exhibit 22. She accepted that, she had shown the spot of incident and the police had taken photographs of the spot. She identified the appellant in the court. However, having said this, she further deposed that the incident on the previous day of going to the agricultural field was not true. She also denied that the appellant had taken her in his arms in the agricultural field. The victim did not support the prosecution case, therefore, she was declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned APP.

In the cross-examination conducted by the prosecution, she stated that her father had lodged the complaint about the incident before the police. She volunteered that her father had told her that they were on inimical terms with the appellant and that she should depose against the appellant before the police and before the J.M.F.C. She further answered that her father had told that the matter was settled with the appellant. She denied the incident which was pu