JUDGMENT :

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. None has appeared for the informant/respondent no. 2.

2. The judgment and order dated 05/04/2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sivasagar, in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 18/2016, convicting the sole appellant Sri Ramu Tanti for committing offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (PCOSO) Act, 2012 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation, has been assailed in the instant appeal.

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the accused/appellant had committed rape on the victim, a 5 years old girl, on 15/05/2016 at around 4 p.m. inside the tea garden belonging to Sri Mohendra Gogoi, causing injury and bleeding in her private parts.

4. On 15/05/2018, at about 8-30 p.m., the father of the victim, viz. Sri Samaru Ghatowar (PW-3) had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Sonari Police Station, based on which, Sonari Police Station case No. 89/2016 was registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The accused was apprehended by the Police. The statement of two witnesses, viz. PW-1 and PW-13 were recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. During investigation, the I.O. had also collected medical report of the victim and recorded the statement of the witnesses. Thereafter, charge sheet (Ext. 10) was laid against the accused under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. It appears that the learned trial Court had initially framed charge against the accused u/s. 4 of the POCSO Act but subsequently, the charge was altered to one u/s. 6 of the POCSO Act. The charge on being read over and explained to the accused, he had pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried, as a result of which, the matter went up for trial.

5. The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined as many as 13 witnesses including the doctor (PW-6) who had examined the victim after the occurrence and the IO (PW-12) who had conducted the investigation.

6. The witnesses PWs 1 and 13 are the mother and the cousin, respectively, of the victim, who had evidently reached the place of occurrence soon after the incident took place and had seen the accused and the victim together with the private part of the victim profusely bleeding. Therefore, these two witnesses are key witnesses examined by the prosecution and their testimonies had been heavily relied upon by the learned trial Court.

7. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, he had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him. According to the accused, he has been falsely implicated in the matter out of grudge since he had earlier married the elder daughter of the informant and subsequently, got separated. The defence side, however, did not adduce any evidence.

8. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned Special Judge had held that the charge brought against the accused person was established beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused was convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid.

9. Mr. R. Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant has argued that the learned trial Court had erroneously placed reliance on the evidence of PWs 1 and 13 by ignoring the contradictions and improvements in their testimonies. It is also the submission of Mr. Sharma that there is no eye witness to the occurrence, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the charge brought against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

10. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, on the other hand, has argued that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge brought against the accused based on cogent evidence. As such, in view of t