JUDGMENT :

(Krishna Rao, J.)

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Court, North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder in Special POCSO Case No.2 of 2020, Special POCSO S.T Case No.16 of 2020 ( The State vs. K. Duryodhan and Smt Sapna) date 17th November, 2021 wherein the learned Judge had convicted the appellant K. Duryodhan and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Office Act, 2012 and also to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-out of which 90 per cent amount is to be paid to the victim as compensation under section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in default of payment, the appellant will suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.

2. The case is initiated on the basis of the complaint of the victim before the Police Station Mayabunder on 5th January, 2020 being FIR being FIR No.6 of 2020 under section 7/8/11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 against the appellant.

3. It is alleged that, on 10th December, 2019 at about 4.30 pm in the evening, when the victim was going from the footpath of her house to take a pen from the shop of Balakrishna located near the main road and when she passed through the house of the appellant, who works in the Electricity Department standing in front of his house and on seeing the victim going from footpath called the victim but the victim did not give any attention to his words, but when the victim was returning from the shop after buying a pen, the appellant had stopped the victim at the footpath in front of his house and had caught hold the hand of the victim and when the victim asked the appellant to leave her hand but the appellant has put his other hand inside her cloth and started touching her chest with dirty intention. The victim further stated in her statement before the police that when she tried to free herself from the appellant, the appellant had repeatedly caught hold one of her hand and put his other hand inside her cloth and hold her chest. She somehow managed to free herself from the appellant and run away from there. Thereafter, the victim had narrated the same to Harshika Peter Didi. Then she informed the incident of her aunt Miss M. Satya Narayana and her mother on the same day. Thereafter they asked the appellant, the appellant had replied shall I show by repeating the same. Keeping in mind of prestige, they have not made any complaint. But whenever the victim go to school, the appellant was looking at the victim with bad intension for which the victim along with her mother and aunt reported the matter to the police on 05.01.2020.

4. On the basis of the said statement, the police has started investigation. During investigation, the appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against the appellant as well as one Smti Sapna for the offence under section 7/8/11/19/21 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

5. On 4th September, 2020, charge was framed against the appellant for the offence under section 7/8 of the POCSO Act read with section 11 and 12 of the said Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial, altogether the prosecution has examined ten witnesses namely;

(i) PW-1 -the victim;

(ii) PW-2 – Smti.Venkat Raman;

(iii) PW-3 -Kumari Harshika Peter;

(iv) PW-4 -Shri M. Satya Narayani;

(v) PW-5 -Dr. Grace;

(vi) PW-6 -Shri Subramaniam;

(vii) PW-7-Niranjan Malakar;

(viii) PW-8-Dr. Satyajeett Halder;

(ix) PW-9 Somen Kumar Halder and;

(x) PW-10 -Insp. K.S. Tiwari.

The prosecution has exhibited altogether 10 documents i.e :-

(i) Exhibit-1 – Firdh Bayan (Initial Statement of victim);

(ii) Exhibit-2 – Medical examination report of victim (Proforma-I)

(iii) Exhibit-3 – Statement of victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C

(iv) Exhibit-4 – Seizure list of Birth Certificate of victim

(v) Exhibit-5 – Statement of Harshika Peter