JUDGMENT :

Tirthankar Ghosh, J:-

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Special Court-Cum-Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Serampore, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. (POCSO) 19/2017 corresponding to Special (POCSO) No. 06/2016 wherein the trial Court was pleased to hold the appellant guilty under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to undergo additional Simple Imprisonment for one month.

2. The genesis of the present case was on the basis of complaint lodged by ‘Y’ father of ‘X’ who alleged that his 13 year old daughter was returning home on 26.06.2016 at about 5.30 pm when the accused Gobinda Bag (Buro) of their village stood in front of her and brought her down and with an ill-motive tried to cover her face. However, some villagers noticed when he fled away. The complainant as such requested the police authority to take appropriate steps against the accused.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint dated 26.06.2016 addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Chanditala Police Station case no. 304/16 dated 26.06.2016 was registered for investigation under Section 8/12 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 of the IPC. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted before the jurisdictional Court under the same Act and Sections. After supply of copies charge was framed against Gobinda Bag under Section 354 of IPC and Section 8/12 of POCSO Act. The contents of the charge were read over to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 6 witnesses which included PW1, ‘X’, victim girl; PW2, Dr. Dibyendu Dutta, who examined the victim girl; PW3, ‘Y’ father of the victim girl; PW4, ‘Z’ mother of the victim girl; PW5, Debasish Chatterjee, SI of Police; PW6, Nilkantha Mondal, Investigating Officer of the case. Prosecution in this case also relied upon number of documents which will be dealt with subsequently while discussing the evidence. However, the defence neither adduced any oral or documentary evidences but only emphasised on the foundation of the prosecution case.

5. PW1, ‘X’ is the victim girl who deposed that the de facto complainant is her father who filed the written complaint with Chanditala Police Station on 26.06.2016, as on that day at about 5.30 pm when she was returning from her tuition classes in her bicycle then all on a sudden a person standing by the side of the road pounced upon her and put his hand on her mouth and as a result of which she fell on the earth. She raised alarm and after hearing her hue and cry local people came to her rescue when the accused fled away. After returning to her residence she informed the incident to her parents. She came to Court and gave statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate. She identified her signature in the statement recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate who read over the same to her when she signed the same. Her signature in the statement was marked as Ext.1 and Ext.1/1. Subsequently she came to know that the accused is Gobinda Bag and she identified the accused in Court.

6. PW2, Dr. Dibyendu Dutta is the medical officer attached to Walsh Hospital, Serampore and on 30.06.2016 the victim ‘X’ was produced before him for medical examination but she refused to extend her consent for medical examination. The endorsement of the mother of the victim girl who accompanied her regarding the refusal was made in his presence, he identified the medical report which was prepared and signed by him. The same was marked as Ext.2 and his signature was marked as Ext.2/1. The witness also identified the endorsement of the mother of the victim which was marked as Ext.2/2.

7. PW3 is ‘Y’ complainant, who deposed that on 26.06.2016 at around 5.30 pm an incident occurred with his daughter. At t