MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By the present appeal, Dalip @ Ballu challenges the impugned judgment dated 23rd January, 2016 whereby he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO’) and order on sentence dated 28th January, 2016 whereby he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 10 POCSO and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. Learned counsel for Dalip @ Ballu submits that child victim was tutored. No internal medical examination of the child victim was got conducted which falsifies the case of the prosecution. Though, it has come in the testimony of the child victim and her mother that the child victim made a call to her mother, however, the same has not been proved. Though it was urged that the initial call was made by the mother of the child victim, however the same is not reflected in the DD No.39A. There is delay in lodging the FIR. There are contradictions in the statements of the child victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 C