JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J. :

1. Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 19.06.2017 and 20.06.2017 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. 8(7) of 2015 arising out of Sessions Case No. 21(6)15 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5 of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment for six months more and a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-to the minor child.

2. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 01.03.2015 at about 04:00 P.M., the appellant allured the minor victim aged around eight years by offering her Rs. 10/-and took her to the bank of Kansai river. There he molested her. After removing her inner garment, he inserted his finger into her vagina. One Swapan Moni (P.W. 9), a neighbour noticed the incident and shouted. Appellant fled away. The minor returned home and revealed the incident to her parents. FIR was registered by her mother (P.W. 2) resulting in registration of Panskura Police Station Case No. 107 of 2015 dated 03.03.2015 under sections 376(2)(i)/506/323 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. In the course of investigation, appellant was arrested. Minor child was medically treated. Her statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.

4. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Charges were framed under section 376(2)(i) IPC and under section 6 of the POCSO Act. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In course of trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents to prove its case. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.

6. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2017 and 20.06.2017 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

7. Mr. Mitra for the appellant submits there is delay in lodging FIR. Scribe of the FIR was not cited as witness in the charge-sheet. Swapan Moni (P.W. 9) has not supported the prosecution case. There is variation with regard to the genesis of the incident in the statement of the minor recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and her deposition in Court. Due to enmity between the parties the appellant was falsely implicated. Therefore he prays for acquittal.

8. Learned Counsel for the State submits the version of the minor (P.W. 1) is consistent with the FIR. In view of the nature of offence i.e. gender violence perpetrated on the minor, delay cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. Slight variation in the statement of the minor recorded before Magistrate also does not militate against her truthfulness. Minor victim (P.W. 1) was corroborated by her mother (P.W. 2) and other circumstantial evidence regarding the allegation involving insertion of finger in her private parts. Absence of injuries does not improbabilise such accusation. Hence, prosecution case is proved beyond doubt.

9. P.W. 1 is the minor victim. She was eight years old at the time of incident. She deposed appellant offered her money and took her to the bank of Kansai river. He removed her wearing apparels and inserted his finger in her private parts. She returned home and informed the matter to her parents. Her parents lodged FIR. She made statement before Magistrate. She proved her signatures (Exhibits – 1/1 to 1/3). She identified the appellant in Court. She remained unshaken during cross-examination.

10. P.W. 2 is the mother of the victim. She deposed she and her husband had gone to the field for cultivation. Her daughter was alone in the house. Appellant took her to the bank of river Kansai and inserted his finger in her private parts. Her daughter disclosed the incident to her, so did P.W. 3 (Archana Maity) and P.W. 9 (Swapan Moni). She and her husband w