A. M. BADAR, J.:–It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant/father had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his eldest daughter repeatedly since prior to 2007 till lodging of the FIR by her against her father on 30.07.2013 with Mahila Police Station-Bhojpur. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to describe the appellant by word ‘F’ instead of disclosing his full identity in view of the statutory provisions of Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as well as in view of object of Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, we shall be referring his daughters who are victim of the crime in question as D-1 and D-2 as name and identity of victim of rape and penetrative sexual assault cannot be disclosed. The Registry shall upload this judgment and order on the website by ensuring that the cause title is reflected in the similar manner.

2. The appellant/convicted accused by this appeal is challenging the judgment and order dated 18.11.2014 and 20.11.2014 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Bhojpur at Ara, in POSCO Case No.4 of 2013 and thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 376(i) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. For the offence punishable under Section 10 of the said Act, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. The learned trial Court had directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in his original capacity as an accused.

3. Facts in brief leading to the prosecution of the accused, projected from the police report, can be summarized thus:—

(A) The accused used to reside at M. P. Bagh locality in Ara Town along with his wife, four children and a younger brother. His wife died by hanging on 14.11.2007. According to the prosecution case, the accused is having two daughters and two sons. At the relevant time both his daughters were below 18 years of age. He used to indulge in sexual assault on his daughters and, therefore, there used to be quarrel between the accused and his deceased wife.

(B) After death of his wife, the accused continued his sexual assault on his eldest daughter to whom we are addressing as D-1. She ultimately mustered courage to lodge the FIR against her father on 30.07.2013 with Bhojpur Mahila Police Station, which has resulted in registration of Crime No.56 of 2013 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(g)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

(C) It is averred by the first informant-daughter that after death of her mother, the accused started frightening her as well as her younger sister who is being described by us as D-2. The First Informant further alleged that the accused started doing ‘dirty deeds’ with both of them and because of fear of the accused they were not daring to disclose those incidents by raising their protest. According to the First Informant/D-1, the accused used to administer her the medicines inducing sleep for doing ‘dirty deeds’ with her. Fed up with repeated sexual assault on her by the accused, she had sent her uncle Suresh (PW 2) to the place of her maternal grand parents for disclosing her suffering to her Mausi who is examined as PW 3 by the prosecution. We shall refer her as ‘G’ . Then her maternal aunt heard her narrations. With this the First Informant prayed for taking suitable action against her father by further informing that because of ‘dirty deeds’ of her father she became pregnant in the year 2009 and her father caused her abortion through a lady doctor.

(D) After registration of the crime in question, PW 6 Punam Kumari, Station House Officer of Mahila Polic