JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal from Jail by the convict appellant against the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Court of Special Judge under POCSO Act, 2012 in SC No. 68/2014 corresponding to Criminal Trial No. 1016/2014 convicting the appellant under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to the period already undergone i.e. 2 years 7 months and 14 days. The appeal is also against the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the same Court in SC No. 86/2014 corresponding to Criminal Trial No. 1177/2014 convicting the appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and with a default clause. Be it stated herein that the victim/prosecutrix in both the cases are sisters. The victim/prosecutrix in S.C. No. 68/2014 at the time of the incident was about 13 years while her sister, the victim/prosecutrix in S.C. No. 86/2014 was 10 years at the time of the incident.

3. Since the appellant is convicted and sentenced in two separate case, Registry is directed to register a separate appeal in respect of SC No. 86/2014 corresponding to Criminal Trial No. 1177/2014. The appeal already registered as Criminal Appeal No. 21/2017 (J) shall be in respect of SC No. 68/2014 corresponding to Criminal Trial No. 1016/2014.

4. Since a common paper book was prepared for the two criminal appeals, they are disposed of through the present common Judgment and Order.

5. The case of the prosecution in SC No. 68/2014 is that on 18.05.2014, a written information was received from the mother of the prosecutrix to the effect that on the same day while she and her husband were not at home, the appellant who is their neighbour sexually molested her daughter by touching her breast and even trying to kiss her. The prosecutrix then called her mother over phone and pursuant to which, she and her husband rushed home. As a result, Vaivakawn Police Station Case No. 139/2014 under Section 354 (A) (2)/509 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act was registered on the same day and investigation got underway.

6. After the investigation was completed, charge was framed against the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. As a result, trial against the appellant commenced. During the trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses which included the prosecutrix, her mother and a seizure witness. Besides them, the Investigating Officer, who submitted the charge sheet was examined as PW-6. The confessional statement of the accused appellant under Section 164 of the CrPC was also recorded. Upon conclusion of the prosecutions evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC. The defence led no evidence.

7. Consequently, upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide its Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2016 convicted the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act read with Section 18 of the same Act. On such conviction, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for the term already gone i.e. 2 years 7 months and 14 days.

8. In respect of SC No. 86/2014, it is the prosecution case that a separate FIR was submitted by the mother of the prosecutrix on 18.05.2014 to the effect that on 17.05.2014, her daughter aged 10 years was sexually assaulted by the appellant who is their neighbour. She reported that the appellant inserted his finger inside the private part of her daughter and also licked the same. As a result, Vaivakawn Police Station Case No. 138/2014 under Section 376 (2) (i) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered and following which, investigation was conducted. After the investigation was completed, charge was framed against the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act on 20.11.2