A. M. BADAR, J.:–By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 14.11.2017 and 24.11.2017 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nawada, in POCSO Case No.1 of 2013, thereby convicting him of the offences punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (For the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years apart from imposition of fine of rupees one lac for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in his original capacity as an accused.

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

(A) According to the prosecution case, the accused, at about 2:30 PM of 19.07.2013, had committed penetrative sexual assault on PW 8 the victim female child who at the relevant time was aged about three and half years.

(B) PW 8 the victim female child to whom I shall be referring as ‘X’ along with her family members were residing at her house situated at Karigawn village in the jurisdiction of Police Station Rajauli of District- Nawada. The accused is her neighbour. On 19.07.2013 she went out for playing and visited the house of the accused. There at about 2:30 PM of 19.07.2013, the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim female child. In the meanwhile, ‘X’ - the victim female child could not be located. Her family members started her search in the vicinity. During the course of that search, PW 7 Bachchan Singh traced her out at the house of the accused. The victim female child was bleeding and was unconscious. PW 7 Bachchan Singh brought her back to her house. Upon noticing her condition, her family members immediately took her to the Primary Health Centre, Rajauli, from where she was referred to Sadar Hospital Nawada. During the course of her medical treatment, on 22.04.2013, PW 8 the victim female child ‘X’ regained consciousness and informed her parental relative that the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Then on 23.07.2013 PW 3 Birendra Singh, grandfather of the victim female child lodged the First Information Report of the incident with the Police Station Rajauli which has resulted in registration of Crime No.151 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The victim female child was then got examined from PW 4 Dr. Neelam Kumari, the Medical Officer of the Sadar Hospital, Nawada.

(C) The statement of the witnesses came to be recorded and on completion of the routine investigation, the accused came to be charge sheeted.

(D) The learned trial Court framed and explained the charges for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(E) In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses. PW 1 Arvind Singh is grandfather of the victim female child. PW 2 Pramod Singh is a co-villager. PW 3 Birendra Singh is the First Informant. PW 4 Dr. Neelam Kumari is the Medical Officer of Sadar Hospital, Nawada. PW 5 to which I shall be referring as ‘M’ is the mother of the victim female child. PW 6 to which I shall be referring as ‘G’ is the grandmother of the victim female child. PW 7 Bachchan Singh is a person who had brought back the victim female child from the house of the accused after the incident. The victim female child ‘X’ is examined as PW 8. Mahendra Singh is examined as PW 9 and Investigating Officer Sudama Prasad Singh is examined as PW 10.

(F) The defence of the a