The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, the legislative presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, and the consideration of sentencing policy in determining the appropriate punishment.

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.

1. Doubting the correctness of the judgment dated 22.06.2015 and order of conviction dated 23.06.2015 the appellant has preferred this appeal and prayed for setting aside the judgment and order of conviction.

2. According to the appellant, learned Trial Court did not consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives. The Learned Court below failed to appreciate that there are enormous exaggeration and embellishment in the evidence, which are not in conformity with the F.I.R. If the evidence would have been correctly considered, in that case acquittal would be the only answer.

3. As against this learned Counsel on behalf of the state had contended that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and the learned Trial Court had considered all the material aspects in its proper perspectives. Espousing the finding of the learned Trial Court, the respondent submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction do not require any interference.

4. With a view to appreciating the prosecution case, need of the hour is to consider of factual aspects of the case. Prosecution case in a nutshell such that on 09.08.2014 at or about 17:00 hours the victim went to the house of the appellant, who happens to be his grandfather, and at that time the appellant kissed the child and touched are vagina and thereafter, he inserted his finger in her vagina. He had threatened the victim lest she disclosed this incident to anybody. After a few while her mother called her and at that time she came back. After coming to her own house she had ventilated her distraught mental agonies to her mother. Be it mentioned, that the victim's father resides at Malaysia. On the next morning the mother took the child to a local Dr. named S.N. Das, and thereafter, the victim was taken to Ranaghat S.D. Hospital. After giving proper treatment she was released.

5. After lodging of F.I.R. the Investigating Officer has started investigation. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the available witnesses under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, prepared rough sketch map with index, sent the victim and her mother to Court for recording their statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has also collected the medical reports of the victim as well as potency test report of the appellant and, thereafter, he has submitted charge-sheet.

6. On the basis of the charge-sheet so filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the learned Trial Court had framed the charge. The said charge was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In such circumstances, the duty of this Court is to assess the evidence along with its credibility and also this Court is to see if there is any exaggeration or embellishment.

8. P.W. 1, is the victim herself. In her evidence in chief she has very categorical stated regarding the incident and had stated that the appellant had touched her vagina in the said afternoon. She was also asked to twist the penis of the appellant, who happens to be her grand-father (father's uncle). She had also admitted that she had given statement under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Magistrate. Her such evidence has to be assessed with the statement made by her before the Trial Court along with the contents of the F.I.R. In the F.I.R. it has been specifically mentioned that the appellant had put his finger in to her vagina. In her statement, she has stated that the appellant disrobed her and put his finger in to her vagina. She also categorically stated that the appellant had sucked her breasts and also kissed her. She has made another statement that the appellant wanted twist his penis which she refused. Her such was made before the learned Magistrate. On 04.09.2014 in her cross-examinati