JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J .

1. The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-9-2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)/Special Court (POCSO Act), Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Spl.Cr. (POCSO) Case No.26/2019 whereby the trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo RI for 20 years and fine of ? 2,000/- for the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’). The trial Court also imposed default sentence in case of failure to pay the fine.

2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that on 5-5-2019 the mother (not examined, as she died during pendency of trial) of the victim made a report at Police Station Bodhghat that her daughter/victim namely; L (PW-9) has left the house and she received an information from the Jagdalpur Child Home that her daughter is at Jagdalpur. When she went to Jagdalpur, then the victim disclosed that she met with the accused at Jagdalpur Railway Station wherefrom she was taken to his house and after keeping her in captivity, forceful sexual intercourse was done. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of the Cr.P.C. and in order to determine the age of the prosecutrix, she was subjected to ossification test by X-Ray wherein she was stated to be 14-17 years of age. Thereafter, the map of the area was prepared and the other statements were recorded. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

3. During the course of trial the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited as many as 28 documents. Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to a finding that the appellant has committed the offence and convicted & sentenced him as mentioned above. Thus, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is inconsistency in the statement of the victim L (PW-9). As per her statement, she disclosed the entire facts of sexual assault to Geeta Baghel (PW-3). Statement of Geeta Baghel (PW-3) would show that such incident was not disclosed to her by the victim L (PW-9). He would further submit that the statement of Smt. Rajni Chouhan (PW-4) though at one hand she stated that the victim has disclosed that she was subjected to rape by the accused, but in the crossexamination she stated that the victim was speaking in Odia language, therefore, no clarity of happening of sexual assault was proved. He would also submit that the statement of Dr. Govind Singh (PW-5) and the X-Ray report (Ex.P/4) would show that the victim has crossed the age of 18 years, which is admitted by the Doctor and in the MLC no definite opinion of rape was suggested. In support of his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar v State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443, to submit that since there is inconsistency in the statement of the victim in such case the conviction cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Court has misdirected himself to evaluate the evidence and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which is required to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that the judgment of the learned trial Court is well reasoned and merited. He went through the statement of victim L (PW-9) to submit that she in categorical terms deposed that she was subjected to rape by the appellant and which continued for quite a period of time. Therefore, after the report, the victim was lodged in the Jagdalpur Child Home. He would lastly submit that under the circumstances the appeal has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Primarily the learned trial Court has convicted the accused und