JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Notice has been served upon the informant, however, the informant has chosen not to enter appearance.

2. The appellant in this case is seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 13.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment) and the order dated 16.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Court, Siwan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in POCSO Trial Case No. 143 of 2019 arising out of Maharajganj P.S. Case No.108 of 2019. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court has been pleased to convict the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and ordered him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two years.

Prosecution story

3. The prosecution case is based on the written information of the father of the victim (PW-3) dated 16.04.2019 submitted to the officer in-charge of Maharajganj police station. In his written information (Exhibit-3), the informant alleged that on 15.04.2019 when her daughter (X) aged about 5 years was returning from her school, near Kalisthan his co-villager Arun Prasad (this appellant) aged about 35 years allured her by giving a chocolate and took her in his lap, he took the victim to Arhar field and there he opened the pant of the victim and inserted his finger in her private part as a result of which the victim started bleeding. It is stated that when the victim started weeping then the appellant left her, the victim came to her house and disclosed the occurrence whereafter the father of the victim went to the house of this appellant who told him to do whatever he wanted to do.

4. After investigation of the case, the I.O. submitted Charge-sheet No. 104 of 2019 dated 20.06.2019 against the appellant under Sections 376/511 IPC and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act. The learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, siwan took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 22.06.2019. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed charges under Sections 376/511 of the IPC as also under Section 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act on 15.10.02019 against the appellant. The charges were explained to the accused person in Hindi who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution as many as six witnesses have been examined. The complete description of the prosecution witnesses whose oral testimonies have been recorded by the learned trial court and the documentary evidences proved on behalf of the prosecution are provided hereunder in tabular form for ready reference :-

List of prosecution witnesses.

List of Exhibits

6. After recording of the prosecution evidences, statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’) on 19.04.2022. The appellant denied the correctness of the incriminating circumstances upon him and came out with a plea that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

Findings of the learned trial court

7. The learned trial court found that the accused-appellant has not produced any witness, evidence or documentary evidence in his defence but has cross-examined all the witnesses examined by the prosecution in detail.

8. The learned trial court found that in the present case, the witnesses examined in the trial are PW-3, the mother of the victim, PW-4, the father of the victim and PW-1, the victim herself. Thus, all these witnesses are family members-cum-close relatives. No documentary proof of the victim’s age was filed, but her mother (PW-3) stated she was eight and a half years old at the time of the incident. The defence