The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the lack of supporting evidence for the defense's claims to uphold the conviction for penetrative sexual assault.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated August 26, 2015 and order of sentence dated August 27, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court–cum-Special Court, Darjeeling in Sessions Trial No.1/14 arising out of Sessions Case No.82/2013.

2. By the impugned judgment of conviction, the learned trial Judge found the appellant before us guilty under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. By the impugned order of sentence, the learned trial Judge sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also sentenced the appellant to pay of fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

3. The case of the prosecution as against the appellant before the trial Court was that, the appellant on August 15, 2013 at about 4:30 P.M. called the victim to his house to watch television and raped her thereby committed an offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the prosecution, the appellant was guilty of penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

4. Police registered a First Information Report on the basis of the written complaint dated August 16, 2013 lodged by the mother of the victim. Formal First Information Report was registered on August 16, 2013 on the basis of such written complaint.

5. On completion of the investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the appellant. Jurisdictional Court, framed charges under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 as against the appellant on January 31, 2014.

6. To bring home the charges as against the appellant, prosecution examined eight (8) witnesses and relied upon various documentary exhibits. Appellant in defence examined two witnesses.

7. Prosecution witness no.1 is the scribe of the written complaint. He narrated how the mother of the victim came to him whereupon, at her instruction he drafted the written complaint. He tendered the written complaint in evidence which was marked as Exhibit-1. He stated that, the written complaint was in his handwriting. He also tendered his signature on the written complaint which was marked as Exhibit-1/2. He stated that he read over the contents of the written complaint and explained the same to the mother of the victim.

8. The mother of the victim deposed as P.W.2. She stated that on August 15, 2013 at about 4 o’ clock in the evening, the victim was called by the appellant to his house for watching television. The appellant was her landlord. She narrated that, the victim came running to her and that she saw blood coming out from the private parts of the victim. She stated that, at the relevant point of time her husband was not in the house. She asked the victim the reason for the injury and cried for help. Appellant and his wife and other people came and prevented her from coming out of the house. They requested her to compromise and sort out the matter and that it should not be spread out as it could malign the reputation of the family. After few hours, she escaped from the house and sought help from her neighbour. There again she was approached for compromise. She stated that, she was alone and helpless as her husband was not there and she could not do anything and stayed in the house. On the next date, after her husband arrived, she narrated the incident to him. They went to lodge the complaint. She explained the delay of lodging the complaint in the manner as noted above. She acknowledged that she lodged the written complaint. She identified her signature on the written complaint which was marked as Exhibit-1/2. She stated that, the victim was thereafter medically examined. She stated that, the age of the victim was six (06) years old. She identified her signature on the medical report and the consent given which were