JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sharma, J.—This appeal is instituted against Judgment dated 9.7.2014 rendered by learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, HP in Sessions trial No. 53-ST/7 of 2013, whereby appellantaccused (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’ for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 376 IPC and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and year to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 506 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for commission of offence under Section 4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the prosecutrix was a student of 7th class in Government Middle School Thod Niwad in the month of August, 2013. Her date of birth is 15.9.2001. Her grand mother had gone to Rajgarh. Accused came to her house at 1 pm, gagged her mouth, took her to toilet and committed sexual intercourse with her. PW-5, father of prosecutrix woke up and found that accused had committed sexual intercourse with her. Accused quarreled with father. PW-5 Sanjay Kumar, disclosed the incident to PW-8 Jitender Vermani. He made PW-4 Shanti Devi talk with father (PW-5). Thereafter, PW-4 visited police station Rajgarh and informed the police. Statement of PW-4 was recorded vide Ext PW-4/A. FIR Ext. PW-10/A was recorded. Prosecutrix was produced before PW-12, Dr. Priyanka. During investigation, blood sample on FTA for DNA profiling was obtained. Accused was also arrested and medically examined. Blood sample of accused was obtained. Statement of prosecutrix was also recorded before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh vide Ext. PW-3/A. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities.

3. Prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. His case was that of denial simpliciter. Accused was convicted and sentenced as noticed herein above. Hence, this appeal.

4. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused.

5. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgment of conviction.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.

7. PW-2 Ramesh Vermani, deposed that during investigation, police associated him in the investigation. Prosecutrix was with the police. She identified the place of occurrence. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that on 29.8.2013 accused had confessed before him that he had committed a mistake.

8. PW-3 is the prosecutrix (name withheld). According to her, she was student of 7th class in Government Middle School Thod Niwad. She was born in 2001. She was cleaning utensils on 29.8.2013. Her father was sleeping in the house. Her paternal grand mother had gone to Rajgarh. At about 1 pm, accused Kuldeep came to her house, took her to the toilet, gagged her mouth, caught hold of her hands, and removed her Salwar and committed sexual intercourse with her. Her father got up and came to the spot. Accused quarreled with the father. Thereafter, her father informed Teetu uncle, who informed her grand-mother about the incident. Medical examination was undertaken in