JUDGMENT :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Malda in POCSO Case No.15 of 2015 (Sessions Trial No.59 of 2015) arising out of G.R. Case No.262 of 2014 and Gazole Police Station Case No.31 of 2014 dated 23rd January, 2014, thereby convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter described as the POCSO Act) for committing offence under Section 11 of the POCSO Act.

2. A short question involved in the appeal is that if the accused/appellant was identified by the victim girl at the time of trial, although he was not distinctly identified at the time of commission of offence and the victim girl made allegation against the accused only on her assumption, whether subsequent identification in Court sufficiently connects the accused with the commission of offence.

3. Prosecution story as revealed from the FIR lodged by the father of the victim girl on 23rd January, 2014 is that his daughter, i.e., the victim girl aged about 15 years at the relevant point of time was a student of Class-X at Bardanga High School. One Prakash Sammadar of that school and Satyajit Mondal of another school with others proposed her to establish love relation with them. They also used to threaten her with dire consequences in case of her refusal to accept such proposal. The victim girl informed the matter to his father, the de facto complainant. On 17th January, 2014 at about 6 p.m. when the victim girl was going to the house of her maternal grandfather, situated in the same village, the accused persons gagged her mouth with a handkerchief and dragged her to some distance.

4. The victim became unconscious. When she regained conscious she found the button of her sweater was open, her wearing apparels were torn. The de facto complainant and others conducted search for the said victim girl and found her coming towards the house crying. She was taken to Gazole Primary Health Centre. The Medical Officer referred her to Malda District Hospital. She was admitted to the said hospital as indoor patient. It is also stated by the de facto complainant in her written complaint that on the date and time of occurrence his sister, Jharna Ghosh was going towards a nearby pond. Seeing her, the accused person fled away. It is also stated by the de facto complainant that as he was busy in medical treatment of his daughter there was delay in lodging FIR.

5. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered the aforesaid case under Sections 341/328/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 12/18 of the POCSO Act. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The case was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Malda. Charge under Sections 328/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act was framed against the accused as he pleaded not guilty when the charge was read over and extended to him. Trial of the case commenced. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The incriminating materials appearing in the evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution was confronted with the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where he pleaded his innocence. The defence, however, did not adduce any evidence.

6. The learned Trial Judge on consideration of evidence on record held the accused guilty for committing offence under Section 11 of the POCSO Act and convicted and sentenced him accordingly under Section 12 of the said Act.

7. The said judgment and order of conviction is assailed in the instant appeal.

8. Suffice it to say that at the time of commission of alleged offence there was no person other than the victim girl on the village road. Therefore, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. According to the victim girl, on 17th January, 2014 at