Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 29.08.2019/ 05.09.2019, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial Case No. 645 of 2015, arising out of Kahalgaon (Buddhuchak) P.S. Case No. 10/2015, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:—

3. The victim's name is not being disclosed in the present judgment and order and is being referred to as PW-7/the victim.

4. It is the case of the prosecution itself that the victim is of unsound mind and below 12 years as on the date of occurrence. Father of the victim (PW-3) is the informant based on whose written statement the concerned Kahalgaon (Buddhuchak) P.S. Case No. 10/2015 came to registered on 02.04.2015 for the occurrence said to have taken place on the same day.

5. The prosecution's case, as disclosed in the written report of the informant, is that the victim being mentally unsound was bound with chains by her parents to restrict her movements when she was playing near her house on the date of occurrence. At about 10:30 a.m. in the morning, when the informant returned from a place 'Buddhuchak crossing', he noticed that the victim was not available near the house where she was playing, whereafter, he started searching out for her. At about quarter to twelve he saw that the victim was coming from the direction of Madhya Vidyalaya, Buddhuchak. The informant enquired from the victim about the chain upon which she disclosed that the same was there with the appellant. She took the informant to the appellant's place and told him that the chain was there in the house of the appellant. Thereafter, the informant, keeping in mind the antecedent of the appellant, suspected that the appellant might have sexually assaulted the victim. When the informant reached the house of the appellant, it was found locked. Upon queries made by the informant, the victim disclosed that she had been raped. Thereafter, the informant's wife (victim's mother) also made inquiries and found truth in the disclosure made by the victim that she was raped.

6. From the evidence of the first Investigating Officer (PW-4) it appears that it has been the prosecution's case at the trial that the clothes, which the victim was wearing, were seized by the police. The victim was subjected to medical examination on 03.04.2015. The Medical Board found the age of the victim to be below 12 years though the informant had disclosed the age of the victim to be about 14 years. In the opinion of the Doctor (PW- 1) there was no evidence of sexual intercourse/assault.

7. The police upon completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for commission of the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Cognizance was accordingly taken by the court below of the aforesaid offences. Subsequently, charges were framed on 01.02.2016 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

8. At the trial, the prosecution got examined altogether seven witnesses including father of the victim (PW-3), mother of the victim (PW-2), the victim (PW-7), the Doctor (PW-1) and two Investigating Officers i.e. PW-4 and PW-5. One Manoj Kumar Choudhary was examined as PW-6, possibly, to prove the prosecution's case that the chain, which was used by the parents for tying the victim, was recovered from the house of the appellant. PW-6, since according