JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. Jitender challenges the impugned judgment dated 1st April, 2016 convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 354 IPC and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short `POCSO Act') and the order on sentence dated 4th April, 2016 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offences punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 354 IPC.

2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant contends that victim could not identify the appellant in the Court. Later when the APP pointed out towards the appellant, victim stated "perhaps" he was the person who misbehaved with her. Statement of the victim was not recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The owner of the Atta chakki was not examined by the prosecution. There being no legal evidence against the appellant, he be acquitted.

3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand submits that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and the order on sentence. The reason why the victim could not identify Jitender in Court was due to the fact that the victim was only six