JUDGMENT :

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial (Spl.) Case No. 90 of 2016 arising out of Sessions Case (Spl.) Case No. 113 of 2015, wherein the learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 354A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced him to suffer as follows:

(i) Rigorous Imprisonment for one year to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default additional Simple Imprisonment for one month for offences punishable under Section 354A of IPC;

(ii) Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to suffer additional Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

2. The genesis of the present case relate to Balagarh Police Station Case No. 189/15 dated 27.08.2015. On the basis of a letter of complaint by ‘Y’ addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Balagarh Police Station the present case was initiated. The allegations made in the said letter of complaint were to the effect that on 27.08.2015 at about 9.30 am the complainant’s daughter namely ‘X’ (aged about 10 years 6 months) was called by Hafeez Sahib of a mosque situated near her residence for giving a Tabij (amulet). The complainant’s daughter went to the adjoining house of the mosque where Hafeez Sahib resided, when at the time of tying the tabij at the neck accused touched the breast of the complainant’s daughter thereby outraging her modesty. The complainant’s daughter after returning started crying and thereafter narrated the incident.

3. The complainant as such requested the police authorities to take action against the accused.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Balagarh police station case no. 189/15 dated 27.08.2015 was registered for investigation under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The investigating agency after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under the same act and sections. After supply of copies, charge was framed against the accused person under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The contents of the charge were read over to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon eight witnesses which included PW1, ‘X’, victim girl; PW2, ‘Z’, father of the victim girl; PW3, ‘Y’ mother of the victim girl/complainant; PW4, Mahadev Karfa, scribe; PW5, Dr. Tultul Mukherjee, Medical Officer of Ahmedpur BPHC; PW6, Sujit Debnath, uncle of the victim girl; PW7, Dr. Koushik Banerjee, Medical Officer of District Hospital, Hooghly and PW8, S.I. Somnath Dey, Investigating Officer of the case. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case also relied upon number of documents which would be dealt with while discussing the evidence. The accused on the other hand did not tender any witness or relied upon any documents.

6. PW1, ‘X’, victim girl deposed that the de facto complainant is her mother and stated that the alleged incident took place on a Thursday at about 9.00 am while she was returning from her tuition classes and the accused called her and asked her to come inside his room and he wanted to give her one tabij (amulet). The accused tied the said tabij around her neck with the help of a black string, at that time he intentionally touched her breast and outraged her modesty. She thereafter returned to their/her residence and narrated the facts to her mother who thereafter lodged the instant case at Balagarh Police Station against the accused. She stated that she had been to the Court and gave her statement before the learned Magistrate who recorded her statement, she signed on each and every page of the said statement.