JUDGMENT :

Tirthankar Ghosh, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.09.2022 and 26.09.2022 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Designated POCSO 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur in POCSO Case No.09 of 2016 wherein the learned trial court was pleased to hold the appellant guilty and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years (five years) and to pay of fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month for commission of offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

2. Daspur PS Case No. 27 of 2016 dated 03.02.2016 under Section 10 of the POCSO Act was registered for investigation on the basis of a complaint lodged by ‘Y’ with the Officer-in-Charge, Daspur Police Station. The allegations made in the letter of complaint were to the effect that the complainant’s daughter ‘X’ (aged about 6 years) and the daughter of his elder brother namely, ‘A’ (aged about 7 years) were allured by the accused/appellant Debasish Das by promising to give them chocolate and were called inside his house, where the accused removed the panties of both the child and touched their genitals with ill intention. Both the children returned and complained at their residence. The complainant, as such, requested the police authorities to take action against the accused person.

3. The Investigating Agency on conclusion of investigation submitted chargesheet under Section 354 of IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act against the accused, Debasish Das. After supply of documents on which the prosecution proposed to rely, charge was framed against the accused under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The contents of the charge were read over to the accused person who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 11 witnesses who are as follows:-

5. PW-1 is the victim girl(aged about 6 years) ‘X’; PW-2 is the victim girl (aged about 7 years) ‘A’; PW-3 is the father of the victim girl ‘X’, namely ‘Y’; PW-4 is the mother of the victim girl ‘X’ namely ‘Z’; PW-5 is the father of the victim girl ‘A’, namely ‘B’; PW-6 is the mother of the victim girl ‘A’, namely ‘C; PW-7 is the grand father of victim girl ‘X’, namely ‘S’; PW-8 is Jhantu Gayen, co-villager; PW-9 is Dr. Alok Samanta; PW-10 is SI Pranab Kumar Senapati; PW-11 is Sub-Inspector Krishna Kumar Das.

6. The prosecution in order to support its case relied upon a number of documents which included, the written complaint, the statement of the victim girls under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the medical examination report of both the victim girls, seizure list, birth certificate of both the victim girls, formal FIR and the rough sketch map with index.

7. PW-1 is the victim girl ‘X’ who in her deposition stated that on 26th January, 2016 when the National Flag was hoisted she along with her elder cousin sister, ‘A’ were playing outside the house of Debasish Das. At around 10 am when they were playing, the accused Debasish offered them chocolates and took them to his factory and opened the panties of both of them and touched their vagina. He thereafter gave them chocolates, pulled up their panties and sent them home. After reaching home, she divulged the incident to her mother and so did victim ‘A’. She was produced before the doctor as also before the learned Magistrate and she signed on the said documents.

8. PW-2 is victim ‘A’. She narrated the incident in the same manner regarding the complicity of the accused, as has been stated/deposed by PW-1. She also stated that she was produced before the doctor as well as before the learned Magistrate. Her signature on the statement was also marked as exhibit-2.

9. PW-3 is the complainant and father of the victim girl, ‘X’(PW-1) who deposed that on 26th January, 2016 her daughter ‘X’ along with her cousin’s daughter went to play in front of the house of accused Debasish Das. He at the relevant poin