JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 81/2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 (henceforth “POCSO Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/-; and rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulations, respectively.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.09.2020, the victim boy and his brother went to play near their house- Junadih Badi. The mother of victim boy was at her home. At about 2:00 hours, the brother of victim came there and informed his mother that the accused/appellant has taken the victim to his house by pressing his mouth and the victim has not returned. Thereafter, the mother of the victim went the house of the accused/appellant and saw that the door was closed from inside, then she called the appellant to leave the victim. Then the accused/appellant has opened the door, the victim came out from his house, at that time, the victim was not wearing his undergarments. When the mother asked him about the same, he told that the accused/appellant has committed unnatural act with him and he was in pain. Thereafter, FIR (Ex.P-4) was lodged by mother of the victim (PW-2) at Police Station – Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa on 15.09.2020. The appellant has been arrested on 16.9.2020 vide Arrest Memo (Ex. P-9). After investigation, final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed against the appellant for the aforesaid offences in the Court of Special Judge (Constituted under POCSO Act), Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).

3. During investigation, Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex. P/5C) with respect to the victim has been seized and seizure memo (Ex. P/4) was prepared as well as school certificate of class 8th of the appellant was also seized and seizure memo (Ex. P/8) was prepared. The victim boy was medically examined by Dr. Mahendra Soni (PW-4) vide Ex. P-2 and the accused was also medically examined vide Ex. P-1. The statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Spot map (Ex. P-13) was prepared by Patwari (PW-9). Statements of the other witnesses were also recorded.

4. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

6. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment dated 15.09.2021 recorded a finding that it is the appellant who has committed the unnatural sexual harassment with the victim boy and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment against which, instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred.

7. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned Advocate appears as Amicus Curiae vehemently argued that there are so many contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, as such, their statements do not inspire confidence of this Court so as to convict the accused/appellant. He also submits that there was previous enmity between the family of victim and the family of appellant and, therefore, appellant has been roped in the false case. He submits that medical evidence also does not corroborate with the allegation of unnatural act committed by the appellant. He further submits that in this case, the age of the victim boy has not been duly p