JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.

1. This criminal appeal challenges the judgement passed by learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Darjeeling in Special (C) 43 of 2015, whereby learned Trial Court was pleased to convict Rabi Das, the appellant before this Court for committing offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for six months.

2. Fact of the case in short is that on 9th November, 2014 Manju Mondal informed the Officer-in-charge of Siliguri Women Police Station in writing that on 8th November, 2014 at about 10.00 a.m. Rabi Das, her next door neighbour, came to the house of the father of informant where she has been residing after the demise of her husband with her three daughters. Rabi Das induced her second daughter aged about 8 years with money, put her under fear and established sexual relation with the child by force. Suddenly cousin of the informant entered into the room and saw the incident. Rabi Das somehow fled away. After coming back home the informant was told about the incident and her daughter, the victim child disclosed that for some days, taking advantage of her absence, Rabi Das used to take the child either to his house or to any deserted place or in the house of the de-facto complainant and would ravish her.

3. The information since disclosed offence cognizable in nature Siliguri Women P.S. Case No. 136 of 2014 dated 9th November, 2014 was registered. Police took up investigation which culminated into submission of charge sheet against Rabi Das. The accused person stood the trial by pleading his innocence.

4. To crown success prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Learned Trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses was pleased to pass the impugned judgement.

5. Mr. Ujjal Roy, learned Counsel assails the impugned judgement and submits that learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgement upon misreading of evidence. The de-facto complainant who set the criminal proceeding into motion was not witness to the occurrence. So is the testimony of P.W. 4, grandmother of the victim girl and mother of the de-facto complainant P.W. 5. P.W. 6 is the doctor who examined the victim on 12th November, 2014 and P.W. 7 is also the doctor of North Bengal Medical College and Hospital who examined the victim. They are not witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. Therefore, entire prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of P.W. 2, the victim and P.W. 3, the so-called eye witness. Testimony of both the aforesaid witnesses is not worth credence.

6. Drawing my attention to the testimony of the victim girl Mr. Roy submits that according to victim the accused person came to her residence when she was alone, took her inside the room and opened her panty. Her aunt Alo Das saw the same. She came and while she was talking to the victim girl, Rabi Das left the place. P.W. 3, Alo Das in her testimony stated that she found the accused person standing in naked condition in the room of her niece and her niece was lying upon the bed, and she was also naked. Having noticed her accused Rabi Das “hid himself on the other side of the bed after wearing his lower pant”. Her niece came to her, she was crying and accused fled away from the spot. She informed the mother of the victim. The victim girl told her that accused threatened her, allured her by giving money. She scribed the written information submitted by Manju Das, her cousin. The written information was admitted as Exhibit-4. During cross-examination she stated that grandfather of the victim girl was only in the house, there is only one door in the room where the accused person was found with the victim girl. According Mr. Roy, evidence of P.W. 3 suffers from exaggeration and if her testimony is considered from the point of view of human probability it would be very diff