JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.4.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO), Kunkuri, District Jashpur in Special Sessions Case No. 39/2017 holding him guilty under Sections 342, 363, 354 (A)(i) IPC and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”) and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 342 IPC, RI for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s 363 and 354(A)(i) IPC each, and RI for five years with fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Failure in payment of fine under all the aforesaid sections carries default stipulations as well.

2. Case put forth by the prosecution in brief is that on 3.11.2017 at about 3.30 pm FIR (Ex.P-5) was lodged by Smt. Kalawati Chakresh (PW-3) stating that on 1.11.2017 at about 5 pm two girls of her locality namely Nandni (PW5) and Reshmi (PW-7) told her that on that day at about 3.30 pm during recess period when the prosecutrix (PW-4) aged about 7 years studying in Class-2 was playing outside the school premises, the accused/appellant herein took her into his house and closed the door from inside. FIR also states that on commotion being made and his doors being hit with the stones, the accused/appellant opened the door and the prosecutrix came out. On being asked as to what the accused was doing inside the house, she allegedly disclosed that he was touching her vaginal periphery. When her mother (PW-3) - the lodger of the report too asked the prosecutrix on the basis of information provided by the aforesaid two girls, she reaffirmed the things stating that on the fateful day when she was playing outside the school, the accused/appellant took her to his house by hands, asked her to lie down and touched the vaginal periphery from over the clothes. Based on this, offences under Sections 363, 354 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act were registered against the accused/appellant. On requisite procedural formalities being completed during investigation, such as drawing of spot map, recording of police statements, getting the prosecutrix medically examined, effecting arrest of the accused etc, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 363, 354, 342, 376 IPC and Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. Court below however framed the charge under Sections 363, 342, 376 (2) (f) IPC and Sections 5 (m) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC has also been recorded where he has simply taken a plea of innocence and false implication in the case.

4. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as per the description given hereinbefore vide judgment dated 8.4.2019 which is under assail in this appeal.

5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the accused/appellant as referred to above is not in conformity with the evidence collected by the prosecution and therefore it is liable to be set aside. He submits that despite number of contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses, the Court below has fallen in a serious legal error in abruptly arriving at the conclusion of holding him guilty of the acts falling in sections 342, 363, 354(A)(i) IPC and 10 of the POCSO Act. He further submits that for determination the exact age of the prosecutrix, the prosecution should have resorted to ossification test as well. According to him, medical evidence also does not stand by the prosecution, and that owing to some family dispute, the appellant has been implicated by the mother of the prosecutrix in a false case.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court being based o