Mukta Gupta, J.

By the present appeal Tej Kumar @ Tinku challenges the impugned judgment dated 28th February 2014, whereby he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 377/342 IPC read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short POCSO Act) and the order on sentence dated 4th March 2014 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 6 POCSO and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC.

2. Assailing the conviction, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the incident had taken place on 21st December 2012 while the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 11th January 2013. Hence, there is unexplained and inordinate delay of 20 days which casts serious doubts upon his statement and is a tutored one. Rs.20/- currency note which was given by the appellant to the victim has not been recovered even after thorough search by the po