The prosecution's case can be established through circumstantial evidence and witness demeanor despite inconsistencies in testimonies regarding identification, affirming the conviction under relevant statutes.

JUDGMENT :

Shyam C. Chandak, J.

1. This Appeal seeking an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 15/02/2017, in POCSO Special Case No.1094/2013, passed by the learned Designated Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (“(POCSO Act”), for Gr. Bombay thereby the Appellant was convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Under Section 354 of I.P.C., the Appellant was sentenced to suffer S.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default, he was further sentenced to suffer S.I. for one month. Under of the POCSO Act, he was sentenced to suffer S.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default, he was further sentenced to suffer S.I. for one month.

2. Heard Mr Hari, the learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr Khan, the learned APP for the Respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The prosecution story is that, the victim girl, aged 5 years (PW1) was daughter of the first informant ‘Mrs. R’ (PW2). The Appellant and the family of PW2 were residing in neighbour. On 28/07/2013, at about 11.00 a.m., PW2 was present at her work place. At that time, her daughter ‘M’ came there and told PW2 that the people residing in their Chawl had called her and she should come home soon. Therefore, immediately, PW2 came home. A crowd had gathered in front of her room. On enquiry, the members of the crowd told her that, at about 11:00 a.m., PW1 came out of the house of the Appellant by shouting. Therefore, PW2 inquired with PW1 and the later told her that the Appellant outraged her modesty. Then, the people gathered there inquired with the Appellant and tried to catch him, but he fled away. At that time, PW1 was crying. Then, PW2 took PW1 inside her room and inquired with her. PW1 disclosed that, “I was playing with ‘Ms. A’ in the lane, at the time, Salman’s brother Kalim, residing in neighbour, showed an orange, and said us that, “will give you an orange to eat”, therefore, we both went to his room, but he told ‘Ms. A’ to go away by giving her an orange and took me in his arms, removed my nicker and kissed me.” Further, pointing at her genital, PW1 told that, “and touched the hand here.” Therefore, PW2 filed the Report (Exh.10) with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, at Govandi, Mumbai therein she narrated as above. PW6 PSI Kamble recorded the Report and registered the FIR bearing C.R.No.221/2013, under Sections 354 of I.P.C. and under Section 8 of POCSO Act.

4. During the investigation, the Police referred the victim for medical, recorded the Spot Panchanama and the statements of the witnesses. Additionally, the police obtained the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The appellant was arrested. On completion of the investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet for the said offences.

5. However, the trial Court framed the charge under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The Appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. His defence was of denial and false implication.

6. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses, i.e., the victim, her mother, sister, the Civil Judge Senior Division who had recorded the statement of the victim under Secion 164 of Cr.P.C., Medical Officer and PW6 PSI Vinod Kamble who had recorded the FIR and conducted the investigation.

7. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the Appellant denied the incriminating evidence and stated that, he was not residing in Govandi and that, the witnesses have deposed against him as they wanted to extract money from him.

8. On