JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred at the instance of the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 24/11/2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Special Sessions Trial No. 129/2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 2012’) and he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08/04/2014, the appellant herein sexually assaulted the victim, aged about 9 years, and thereby, committed the aforesaid offence.

3. Further case of the prosecution is that on 08/04/2014 at about 1 PM, victim had gone to the shop of the appellant to buy some eatables, however, when she did not return after about half an hour, her mother (PW-2) went to appellant’s shop and upon hearing her, victim came out from the courtyard of the appellant. When victim’s mother (PW-2) asked about her whereabouts, she informed her that appellant had taken her to the courtyard and also told her about the heinous act committed by him. Thereafter, victim’s mother (PW-2) reported the matter at Police Station on the basis of which first information report (Ex.P/3) was lodged against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the Act of 2012 and the matter was taken into investigation. Victim was subjected to medical examination on 10/04/2014 which was conducted by Dr. Poonam Singh (PW-5) and the medical report was found positive and underwear of the victim along with one slide were seized vide Ex.P/4 and it was sent for forensic examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P/23), spots of semen and human sperm were found on it. Dr. Poonam Singh (PW-5) also advised to obtain Radiologist’s report for determining the age of the victim which was conducted on 11/04/2014 at District Hospital, Bilaspur and as per the report (not exhibited on record) victim’s age was determined to be between 11-13 years. After due investigation, vide order dated 06/06/2014, appellant was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the Act of 2012, however, later on, since counsel for the appellant admitted to the correctness of Ex.P/6, which is a copy of the register maintained by Anganbadi Center, Dabripara in which date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 06/11/2005, charge framed against him for offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act of 2012 was altered to Section 6 of the Act of 2012 on the ground that since the age of the victim has been admitted by the appellant to be 9 years, it would come under Section 6(1) of the Act of 2012 which provides punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and brought on record 24 documents. The statement of the appellant was taken under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and only brought two documents on record.

5. Learned Special Judge, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 4 of the Act of 2012 and sentenced him as aforesaid.

6. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that prosecution has failed to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that alteration of charge from offence punishable under Section 4 to Section 6 of the Act of 2012 by order dated 11/09/2015 was based on alleged admission of the appellant whereby counsel for the appellant is said to have admitted to the correctness of Ex.P/6 i