JUDGMENT :

1. The sole appellant Deepak Mahto was charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act in connection with Inarwa P.S. Case No. 43 of 2018 corresponding to CIS No. 218 of 2018. However the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 18 of the POCSO Act for the reason that the trial Judge was of the view that no case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault was made out rather a case of attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault was proved against the appellant. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge, POCSO, West Champaran at Bettiah sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lacs. In default of payment of fine, two years further imprisonment was ordered. Out of the aforesaid fine amount, Rs.1 lac was ordered to go to the victim. The judgment of conviction dated 12.06.2019 and order of sentence dated 15.06.2019 are under challenge in this appeal.

2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report (Ext.2) in the pen of Isteyaq is that the prosecutrix aged about 13 years was in her house in village-Khamhiya, P.S.-Inarwa, District-West Champaran. On 16.06.2018 at about 12 night, the appellant entered into her house and forcefully established sexual relationship. The informant tried to make alarm, but the appellant pressed on her mouth. Further allegation is that the appellant lifted her and was carrying her to commit her murder, but the family members came and the appellant was apprehended and was handed over to the police.

3. On the basis of the statement aforesaid, Inarwa P.S. Case No. 43 of 2018 was registered on 17.06.2018 under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act vide Ext.-2.

4. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet under Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Accordingly the appellant was put on trial.

In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 18.06.2018, the prosecutrix stated that the appellant had not ravished her rather attempted to commit rape, but he could not succeed. A copy of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is Ext.-X.

During trial, the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. The medical examination report of the victim is Ext.-5 on the record, whereas chargesheet submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is Ext.-4. The production cum seizure list is Ext.-3.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that none of the prosecution witnesses produced have supported any allegation against the appellant, hence the case is of “no evidence”, but the learned trial Judge misunderstood the legal principles and relied upon the statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel contends that Dr. K.M.P. Parwe who had performed radiological examination of the prosecutrix was not produced in Court nor Dr. Rubi Kumari who had examined the victim was produced by the prosecution rather injury report has been proved by Dr. Keshwar Jamil (PW-7) who was not present at the time of examination of the victim. Hence his evidence was completely hearsay evidence and the accused prejudiced in not getting opportunity to cross-examine the expert.

6. Learned counsel for the State contends that a victim of rape hesitates in disclosing what has happened against her openly at each and every opportunity faced by her and the statement of the prosecutrix as PW-1 would reveal that she has supported her earlier statement given before the police or before the Magistrate. Therefore, she is wholly a reliable witness and corroboration is not the requirement of law. Hence, the judgment of conviction requires no interference.

7. PW-1, the prosecutrix of the case has deposed as follows:-

“I am informant of this case. After the occurrence, I was medically examined. A lady d