JUDGMENT

Jay Sengupta, J. - This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of conviction dated 28.11.2017 and sentence dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in POCSO Case No. 106 of 2016, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The fine, if recovered, was to be paid to the victim. The appellant had already served out substantial part of the sentence and as per report filed by the Superintendent, Balurghat Central Correctional Home, the appellant would be released on 16.03.2021 if the fine is paid and on 16.09.2021 if the fine is not paid. The application for non prosecution of the appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of on 08.01.2021. Thereafter, the appeal was heard at length.

2. On 06.11.2015, PW 1, the elder brother of the victim girl lodged a First Information Report under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 of the Penal Code alleging that on 19.10.2015 at about 11 a.m. the victim, who was aged about 16 years, had gone out from her house, but did not return till midnight. On 27.10.2015 at about 18.00 hours the victim girl returned home screaming. On enquiry, she deposed that the appellant had taken her to his residence luring her with marriage proposal. But, in spite of entering into a physical relationship more than once during her stay at his residence, he left her at a nearby place and disappeared from there. After registration of the First Information Report, investigation commenced. The victim and the appellant were medically examined and a statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 of the Code. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant.

3. On 28.06.2016, the learned Trial Court was pleased to frame a charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the present appellant.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses to establish its case while the appellant relied on three defence witnesses.

5. It appears that PW 1 was the defacto complainant of the case and the elder brother of the victim girl. He supported the First Information Report lodged by him. P.W. 1 had communicated the incident of a panchayat member who assured a 'Salish'. This caused the delay in lodging the First Information Report. During cross-examination, a Nikahnama was shown to the witness, but he disputed the signature on the same. P.W. 2 was the victim girl. She deposed that she had given a statement under Section 164 of the Code. On 19.10.2015, the appellant took her to his house on the pretext of marriage and established physical relationship. However, on 27.10.2015 the appellant left her and thereafter, did not marry her. In her cross, she stated that she was taken in a Bolero car when she was returning home from a bank. She denied her signature on the Nikahnama. P.W. 3 was a neighbour of the victim. He heard the incident from PW 1. P.W. 4 was also a relative of the victim. He corroborated the prosecution case to the extent that P.W. 1 rang up after the victim lady went missing. He came to know about the incident of rape from P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 5 was the doctor who examined the victim girl on 10.11.2015. He proved the medical report being Exhibit 3. Although Exhibit 3 did not reflect the causing of any injury on the victim, but the victim related to the doctor about the forceful intercourse. P.W. 6 was another co-villager of the victim lady. He had heard that the victim had gone missing. He came to know about the incident of rape from the victim girl and her father. In his cross-examination, he denied that the victim was married and was leading a happy married life. P.W. 7 was a covillager of the victim girl. He heard about the incident. In fact, the victim as well as her father told him about the incident. P.W.