The court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act, establishing that evidence from the victim and witnesses proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

The hearing has been conducted through physical mode.

1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of conviction dated 11th September, 2019 convicting him for offence punishable under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act) and the order on sentence dated 17th September, 2019 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the said offence and in default whereof to undergo four months simple imprisonment.

2. Case of the prosecution against the appellant is based on the testimony of the victim who was a student of 5th standard and was aged 10 years at the time of alleged incident. The victim claims that on 18th February, 2017 at around 7.45 AM while she was going towards her school and her father PW-5 was walking 10-15 steps behind her, she took the turn on the road going towards her school, when the appellant suddenly caught hold of her and forcibly kissed on her cheek. The victim raised alarm on which her father also reached at the turn and overpowered the appellant with the help of public persons. In the meantime son of the previous landlord of the victim PW-6 also came at the spot and the appellant was taken to the Police Station.

3. Statement of the victim was recorded immediately which was exhibited vide Ex.PW-5/A based whereon FIR No. 71/2017 under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act was registered at PS Amar Colony. The victim was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded vide Ex.PW-1/A. The age of the prosecutrix was proved by examining the Principal of the school as PW-2 who produced the original school record before the Court and proved that the victim was admitted in 1st standard and had passed out in 5th standard and her date of birth was mentioned as 10th June, 2006. Thus, on the date of incident, the victim was 10 years old and thus a `child' as defined under Section 2 (d) of the POCSO Act.

4. Father of the victim also deposed that on reaching the spot he noted that the appellant had caught hold of her daughter and was touching his mouth on the cheek of his daughter and on seeing this he immediately rushed to save his daughter from the clutches of the appellant. The appellant was beaten by the public persons and in the meantime PW-6 also came at the spot and they took the appellant to the Police Station. Version of the victim and PW-5 is further corroborated by PW-6, son of the previous landlord of the victim's family.

5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the incriminating evidence against him and though he has admitted his presence at the spot he denied having sexually assaulted the victim. He stated that while he was passing through the spot and the victim was coming from the opposite direction, his hand accidentally touched the victim for which he immediately apologized but the father of the victim was not willing to accept the apology and started beating him. He stated that the victim has falsely deposed against him at the instance of her father.

6. The fact that the appellant was present at the spot is thus undisputed and the only issue which remains is whether the hand of the appellant accidentally touched the victim or the incident as alleged by the victim took place. Version of the prosecutrix is duly corroborated by her father who was just 10-15 steps behind her and would have in the meantime turned towards the road leading to the school and hence a natural witness. Soon after the incident the appellant was taken to the Police Station and statement of the victim was recorded and on