JUDGMENT :

Rabindranath Samanta, J.

1. This appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge–cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, 2012, First Court, Sealdah in Special Case No. 55 of 2017 whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act) read with Section 376 (2) (i), Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life without remission and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000,00/-, out of which 90 per cent amount is to be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357, Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year more. By that judgment the learned Trial Judge directed that compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-(Ten Lakhs Only) be paid to the victim under Section 357A, Cr.P.C.

2. The prosecution case, in short compass, may be delineated as under:

On 15th December, 2017 in noon the victim girl who is the younger daughter of the informant Guria Sah was playing in front of her house. At about 3.00 p.m. while she was searching for her daughter, then a girl namely Anjali of her neighbourhood informed her that the appellant/accused Raju Roy took her daughter at his lap. While searching, she saw that her daughter was weeping sitting in front of the house of the accused at 27/3A Owda Raja Lane, P.S. – Narkeldanga, Kolkata-700015, and the accused Raju Roy was sleeping on a cot in his room. The informant took her daughter at lap and saw that her pant was drenched with blood and blood was oozing out from her private parts. She, then and then intercepted Raju and while asked him about the condition of her daughter, he confessed that he committed rape on her daughter. Soon thereafter, the accused fled away from his room.

3. Narrating the episode as above the informant lodged an FIR at Narkeldanga Police Station and the FIR was registered as Narkeldanga P.S Case no. 292 dated 15.12.2017 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

4. After taking up the investigation, the investigating officer arrested the accused and produced him before the learned Trial Judge. During investigation the investigating officer recorded the statements of available witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C and arranged for medical examination of the victim girl. He made prayer before the learned Trial Judge for recording statement of some witnesses including the informant and the victim girl and their statements were recorded by a learned Magistrate. The investigating officer also made arrangement for medical examination of the accused. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet under Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the accused Raju Roy.

5. Ultimately, charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was framed against the accused. Alternatively, charge under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC was also framed against him. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charge.

6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and relied on some documents which have been marked as Exhibits 1 to 21. On the other hand, the accused in order to prove his innocence got himself examined as D.W.1.

7. Upon hearing learned Lawyers appearing for the parties and on consideration of evidence on record the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty of committing the offence and charges framed against him being proved convicted and sentenced him as above.

8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence as aforesaid, the accused has preferred the instant appeal. We have heard Mr. Zohaib Rauf, learned Counsel, assisted by Mr. Rameez Alam, learned Advocate for the appellant (hereinafter be referred as the accused person) as well as Mr. Saibal Bapuli, learned Counsel, assisted by Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya, learned Advocate. Mr. Zohaib Rauf, learned lawyer appeari