1. Heard Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Assam.

2. The informant Duleswar Phukan lodged an ejahar/FIR before the I/c, Borholla P.S. alleging inter-alia that on 05.08.2013 at about 9.00 A.M. he left his daughter in the school. At that time there was none present inside the school when the accused Ajay Tamuly taking advantage of absence of students and other people in the school grabbed his daughter, threatened her that she would be killed if she shouts for help and thereafter the accused committed rape upon his minor daughter. After the incident his daughter ran to home crying and informed the incident to her mother.

3. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR by the In-charge, Panikheti O.P. under Borholla P.S. the same was entered as vide G.D. Entry No. 64 dated 05.08.2013 and it was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Borholla P.S which was registered as Borholla P.S. Case No. 39/2013 under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’).

4. During the course of investigation, the victim girl was medically examined by the doctor. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC by the learned Magistrate. The police on completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused Ajay Tamuly under Section 376 of IPC r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and two more accused persons Khagen Tamuli and Gethuwa Gogoi under Section 212 of IPC.

5. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Titabar Sub-Division, Jorhat, committed the case to the learned Court of the Special Judge, Jorhat for trial.

6. The learned Court below considered the records and the documents therewith. Accordingly, the charges were framed against the accused Ajay Tamuly under Section 376(1)/511 of IPC r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act which were read over and explained to the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. However, co-accused Khagen Tamuli and Gethuwa Gogoi were discharged.

7. In course of the trial, prosecution examined as many as 13(thirteen) witnesses including the victim, father of victim/informant of the case, the Medical Officer and the I.O. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313 of CrPC. The accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and pleaded innocence. No witness was adduced by the accused in defence.

8. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Court found and held the accused guilty u/s 4 of the POCSO Act and convicted the accused person Ajay Tamuly under 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) in-default of payment of fine, to suffer further R/I for 6(six) months.

9. That apart, the learned Court directed to award compensation to the victim girl to be paid by the Secretary District Legal Service Authority, Jorhat. The said amount shall be used by the mother of the victim for her welfare and rehabilitation.

10. As against the aforesaid order of conviction, present appeal has been preferred by the accused from the jail.

11. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the testimony of the victim cannot be wholly relied to rest the conviction as no independent eye witness has been examined despite that it was a school opening day and several students were attending the school. Moreover, there is no conclusive evidence as regards the age of the victim girl and as such, benefit of all these should go in favour of the appellant.

12. On the other hand, according to the learned Addl. P.P. there is no infirmity in the aforesaid order and conviction and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of victim. No any interference in the impugned judgment and order and is called for. Let us examine the evidence on records