Chakradhari Sharan Singh, ACJ. – The sole appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC putting to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 02.09.2021 and the order of sentence dated 03.09.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 6th-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Banka in G.R. No. 2642 of 2015 arising out of Banka Mahila Police Station Case No. 56 of 2015, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: –

2. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. So as to conceal identity of the victim, her name does not figure in the present judgment and order and has been referred to as 'the victim'.

4. A written report of the victim's mother (PW-4), dated 08.12.2015, is the basis for registration of the First Information Report, i.e., Banka Mahila P.S. Case No. 56 of 2015, for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘the Act’ for short). The occurrence had taken place, according to the written report, on the previous day, i.e., on 07.12.2015. The informant, the mother of the victim, disclosed in her written report that this appellant was engaged by her for milking her cow on the payment of Rs. 200 per month. On the date of occurrence, at about 6:30 P.M., after having milked the cow, he had entered into the informant's house and cajoled her eight years old minor daughter, the victim, and had taken her to a cot and after bolting the door from inside, sexually exploited her. When the informant heard the victim crying, she rushed towards her house and the moment she reached there, the appellant, after opening the door, escaped. When the husband of the informant returned, the victim explained the occurrence which had happened with her. Subsequently, after consulting the co-villagers and near relatives, the informant went to the police station with the victim for registration of the FIR.

5. We consider it apposite to note, at this juncture, that the victim was subjected to medical examination on 08.12.2015 at 04:30 P.M.. During the course of medical examination, no internal or external injury was found on the body of the victim, except dark coloured bruise around her vulva. Further, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC on 10.12.2015. She disclosed in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC that the appellant had kissed her and made her lay on the cot after removing her panty. Thereafter, he had put off his pants, which he was wearing and lay with her under a blanket and was rubbing his penis with her vagina. She clearly stated that the appellant had not inserted his penis in to her vagina. The appellant, thereafter, lay over her and left the house thereafter. After the appellant had left the house, the grandmother of the victim, who lived in a nearby house came, to whom she explained about the occurrence.

6. The police, upon completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet, whereafter, cognizance was taken of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The appellant, upon execution of process under Section 83 of the CrPC, was declared as an absconder, who, subsequently, turned up on 19.05.2016 and faced trial.

7. The charges were framed for commission of the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and, thus, claimed to face trial.

8. The prosecution examined at the trial altogether