JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction. The sole appellant, named above, faced trial before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, under the POCSO Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Kudhani P.S. Case No. 407 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 84 of 2016 and Trial No. 06 of 2017. By the impugned judgment dated 21.01.2019, the appellant was found guilty for the offences under Sections 354-A and 341 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (in short “POCSO Act”). By the same judgment, the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned order of sentence dated 29.01.2019, the learned Trial Judge awarded one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, one month simple imprisonment for offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and four years rigorous imprisonment plus fine of rupees ten thousand for offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine, six months rigorous imprisonment was ordered. The sentences are to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report (Ext. 1) of the prosecutrix (P.W. 2) is that on 15.12.2016 at 06:00 a.m., the prosecutrix a girl aged about fifteen years was going to the Bathan from her house. On the way, near the water pumping machine of Darogi Mahto, the appellant, a co-villager, all of a sudden, caught her and started sexual harassment. Pressing on the mouth of the victim, the appellant gave tooth bite at different portion of the chick. The appellant torn her lower garment. On alarm, the people nearby assembled then appellant fled away and the informant could save her chastity. The family of the informant went to the local Sarpanch who asked to go to the police station because the appellant was not ready for Panchayati. In the past also, the appellant had harassed the informant for which Panchayati had taken place.

3. On the basis of written report aforesaid Kudhani P.S. Case No. 407 of 2016 was registered.

After investigation of the case, the police submitted charge-sheet and the appellant was put on trial accordingly.

During trial, prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses and the defence also produced two witnesses.

4. The defence of the appellant is that Pramila Devi, Bhabhi of the appellant had lodged Kudhani P.S. Case No. 30 of 2017 against P.W. 6 Chandan Kumar, the full-brother of the prosecutrix, Niranjan Kumar another full-brother of the prosecutrix, Fhuleshwari Devi the mother of the prosecutrix, against the prosecutrix herself as well as against her father for offences under Sections 147, 341, 354(B), 452, 224, 225, 380 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code allegedly committed on 06.12.2016. The record reveals that initially Complaint Case No. 1571 of 2016 was filed by Pramila Devi for the occurrence dated 06.12.2016 on 23.12.2016 which was registered as Kudhani P.S. Case No. 30 of 2017 on 15.01.2017 on direction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Claim of the appellant is that just to pressurize for withdrawal/compromise of the aforesaid case, the present false case was lodged. In fact, the victim had sustained superficial injuries due to fall in the muddy water and stone at the water pumping machine of Darogi Mahto.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are several material infirmities and suppression of fact in the testimony of the prosecutrix which runs contrary to the medical evidence. Except the prosecutrix, there is no other eye-witness of the occurrence. Rather the defence witnesses, who were, working in the nearby field have stated that no such occurrence took place, rather quarrel between the two families had taken place. Learned counsel further contends that in view of the contradictions in prosecution evidence, it cannot be irresistibly concluded that the prosecuti