The main legal point established is the reliance on the victim's testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., to establish the guilt of the accused, along with the application of the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT

Shivakant Prasad, J. - This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2015 and 16.12.2015 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court-cumSpecial Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Barasat, North 24 Parganas and Sessions Trial No. 05(03)2014 (Special Case No.03 of 2014) convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The prosecution case leading to this appeal in brief is that on 27.09.2013 when victim girl was returning from the toilet, Lal Babu Shaw son of Ghanashyam Shaw caught her forcefully and took her to a godown and raped her. According to the written complaint when she tried to oppose him she was beaten up and she received scratch marks on her body. It is alleged that a month ago, the accused had tried to rape her but she managed to escape. On the written complaint of the victim, Belgharia PS Case No.419 dated 27.09.2013 under Section 8 was registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 4/6/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused-appellant was submitted. Thereafter, trial started with framing of charges under Section 376(2)(j)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 to which the appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses to bring home charges against the appellant. P.W. 1, 2 and 7 are the victim girl, mother of the victim and elder sister of the victim respectively. P.W. 3, 4 and 6 are the neighbours. P.W. 8 is a witness of seizure list. P.W. 9, P.W. 10 and 12 are the Doctors who examined the victim child. P.W. 13 is the Doctor who examined the accused to test his potency. P.W. 11 is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC. P.W. 14 and 15 are the Sub-Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer. The prosecution also adduced in evidence some documents being Exhibits 1 to 16 before the trial Court to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant.

3. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which he inclined to adduce defence evidence and examined one witness, D.W. 1, Jayanta Bain, Staff of Registry Office who proved the certified copy of the deed, Exhibit C as the accused-appellant has taken the alibi that he was at the A.D.S.R., Cossipore, Dum Dum at the material point of time for execution and registration of the deed. Two photographs of the place near place of occurrence marked as material Exhibit-A and B to explain the place of occurrence.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and after giving an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment to a term of three years for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment to a term of seven years for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months with further direction that the fine realized be paid to the victim child and also directed that pre-trial detention undergone by the convict would be set off from the substantive period of sentence as per the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned Judge, has illegally found the appellant guilty without proper appreciation of evidence on record. It is submitted that the P.W.1 victim in her First Information Report and her statement under Sect