JUDGMENT :

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

1. Judgment and order of conviction for committing an offence under Section 10 of the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter described as the POCSO Act) and sentence to suffer imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and default clause passed in Sessions Trial No.06(06) 2018, corresponding to C. Special No.16 of 2018 is assailed in the instant appeal by the convict/appellant.

2. One Taherun Bibi lodged a written complaint on 13th April, 2018 stating inter alia that her minor daughter aged about 7 years at the relevant point of time went to graze her all goats beside ‘Notenala’ situated at the Western side of their village on 9th April, 2018. At about 2 p.m. the appellant found the minor daughter of the de facto complainant alone in the field and forcibly embraced her. Then he opened her pant and put his finger into her vagina to irritate her. Thereafter, the appellant lay her down on the field and forcibly committed rape upon her. She sustained bleeding injury on her person due to such offence. The de facto complainant heard the incident from local people and rushed to the spot and found her daughter in injured condition. The victim narrated the incident to her mother. Immediately she admitted her minor daughter to Kandi Sub-Divisional Hospital. She was discharged from the hospital on 12th April, 2018.

3. On the basis of the said written complaint, police registered Kandi Police Station Case No.125 of 2018 dated 13th April, 2018 under Section 376(2)(i) and Sections 4 and 5 of the POCSO Act and took up the case for investigation. The investigation concluded in filing charge-sheet against the accused Bhema Sk.

4. It is pertinent to mention at the outset that at the time of commission of offence, the appellant was minor above the age of 16 years. He was initially produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Murshidabad. The Board conducted a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence and ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence and passed an order on the basis of the said preliminary assessment that the appellant was required to be tried as an adult.

5. The learned Magistrate of the jurisdictional Children Court held that the appellant was to be tried as an adult as per the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Subsequently the case was transferred to the Special Court under the POCSO Act, Kandi.

6. Trial Court framed charge against the accused/appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty.

7. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, prosecution examined six witnesses. Amongst them P.W.2 is the victim. P.W.1 is the mother of the victim. P.W.3 to P.W.5 are Medical Officers and P.W.6 is a lady Sub-Inspector attached to Kandi Police Station at that relevant point of time and was the Investigating Officer of this case. The F.I.R., sketch map of the place of occurrence and medical examination reports were marked exhibits, which I proposed to refer subsequently the body of judgment.

8. The learned Trial Judge relied on the testimony of the victim girl and her mother. He was also of the view that the ocular evidence of the victim girl regarding the commission of offence was corroborated by the medical evidence and accordingly, he held the accused/appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 10 and 6, read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act. The learned Trial Judge, however, did not pass any order of sentence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. The appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 5 years with fine for the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. He was also sentenced to impris