Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This Court had issued notice to the informant-respondent no. 2. Notice has been validly served. Respondent no. 2 has entered appearance through her Advocate but no one has appeared on her behalf to oppose the appeal.

3. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 07.09.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI cum Special Judge, POCSO, Bhojpur, Ara (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court’) in POCSO Case No. 112 of 2020 arising out of Ara Mahila P.S. Case No. 100/2020.

4. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court has been pleased to hold the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354B, 376A, 376B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and under Section ‘6’ of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’). He has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 354B of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant will be liable for rigorous imprisonment for three months. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376A and 376B of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall be liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section six of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall be liable for rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and the period undergone has been directed to be set off from the sentence awarded.

Prosecution Case

5. The prosecution story is based on a written report submitted by the mother of the victim girl. In her written application, she had alleged as under: –

“Her husband is posted as Bodyguard of Vice Chancellor in the district of Bhojpur. On 21.12.2020 at about 9:00 P.M., her daughter came very scared and told that Ajay uncle, who lives in the same building took her on the roof by alluring her and opened the zip of her pant. She further stated that, Ajay uncle started licking her private part and when she started crying, he slapped her twice but she managed to escape anyhow. Informant having heard the same got scared and went to the house of Ajay Prasad with other neighbours and when they reached there, Ajay panicked and fled away after pushing the informant. The informant informed the Station House Officer of Mahila Police Station.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid written application, Ara (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 100 of 2020 was registered under Section 354B IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act on 22.12.2020. It is worth mentioning that one Kanchan Kumari (P.W.-4), who was posted as Officer In-charge of the Ara Mahila Police Station at the relevant time, registered the First Information Report (FIR). on 22.12.2020 at 00:30 hours and kept the investigation of the case with herself.

7. After investigation, the Investigation Officer (P.W.- 4) submitted a chargesheet bearing no. 1 of 2021 dated 30.01.2021. The learned Special Judge, POCSO Act took cognizance of the offences on 08.02.2021 under Sections 354B, 376(AB) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. On 22.02.2021, the charges were framed against the appellant after he was explained the charges but denied the same and claimed to be tried.

8. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and exhibited five documents to prove the prosecution case. The list of the prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses and the exhibits are being shown hereunder in tabular form: –