RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. None appears for respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar dated 21.2.2017 in Special POCSO case 14/2016 whereby the appellant is convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to r/i for 7 years and fine of Rs. 5,000 and on default to r/i for 2 months.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that the informant along with her minor daughter (victim) resided in the rented premises of the mother-in-law of the accused where the appellant stayed as gharjuwai and the husband of the informant was working in the Assam Rifles in Manipur. While staying as a tenant in the premises the informant noticing some illness of the victim, on 6.10.2015 she was taken to Dr. Bidyut Nath who on her examination reported that the victim was once raped by someone. Then the victim disclosed to the said doctor as well as her mother that about 15-20 days back while she was playing in the varandah the accused/appellant took her to the roof of the building and committed intercourse with her by threatening not to disclose the same to anybody otherwise he will kill all of them and out of fear she did not disclose it to anybody. As the victim was suffering from different types of sickness she was again taken to the said doctor on 27.10.2015 and the doctor prescribed medicine. After fully knowing the alleged incident the informant informed her husband who asked her to wait till he arrives and accordingly after arrival of her husband the FIR was filed by the informant, the mother of the victim.

4. The said FIR was registered Silchar PS case 2940/2015 u/s. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). During the course of investigation the victim was medically examined and she was found to be aged above 9 years and below 11 years. Her statement was also recorded u/s. 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted u/s. 6 of the POCSO Act. The case being triable by the Special Court, was forwarded to the Sessions Court who is also the Special Judge. The learned trial court after complying with the provision of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. and after hearing learned counsel for both parties framed charge u/s. 4 of the POCSO Act and it was explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses to substantiate the charge. P.W. 1 Smt. Dipali Das is the mother/informant, PW 2 is the victim (name with held), PW3 is Mrs. Sorbani Bhattacjarjee, JMFC, who recorded the statement of the victim u/s. 164 of the Cr.P.C., P.W. 4 Dr. Orina Raha (examined the victim after filing of FIR), PW5 Mrs. Suma Dutta (wife of the accused), PW6 Dr. Bidyut Nath (examined the victim prior to filing of FIR), P.W. 7 Nirupam Nath (investigating officer), CW1 Anik Dutta is the son of the accused. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the occurrence and pleaded false accusation. However, no evidence was adduced in defence.

6. The learned trial court after perusing the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the accused, convicted the appellant as aforesaid and hence this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case suffers from various infirmities like major contradictions of the witnesses, delay in filing the FIR, unsupported medical evidence, non-examination of supporting witnesses, and that the findings of the learned trial court is based on inadmissible evidence, which is bad in law.

8. Per contra, learned Addl. P.P. Mr. Dutta submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial court is based on the evidence of the victim and her mother which is corroborative in nature supported by medical evidence and their evidence is en