The victim's testimony does not require corroboration if it inspires confidence and is found to be worthy of credence. The burden is on the accused to disprove the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. L. R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. A. Sheikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Dhubri, in Special Case No. 115/2021, convicting the accused/appellant under Section 354-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand) only and in default R.I. for another 6 (six) months.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant, i.e. the father of the victim, lodged an F.I.R. on 03.09.2019 before the Officer-In-Charge, Fakirganj Police Station, alleging interalia that on 02.09.2019, at about 10.00 a.m., the accused/appellant called his minor daughter, aged about 5 years, inside his room for plucking gray hair from his head. Thereafter, the appellant, with bad intention, removed the half pant of the victim and thereafter the victim came out from the house of the accused/ appellant and narrated the story before her mother. Accordingly, the Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station registered the case vide Fakirganj P.S. Case No. 211/2019, under Section 354-B of the Indian Penal Code readwithSection 8 of the POCSO Act and started the investigation. On completion of the investigation, Charge-Sheet was filed against the accused/ appellant under Section 354-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

4. On appearance of the accused/appellant, the learned Special Judge (POCSO) framed the charge against the accused/appellant and read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined as many as 5 (five) numbers of witnesses including the I.O. in support of their case. But the accused/appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of his case and pleaded not guilty while recording his evidence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hearing the arguments from both sides, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Dhubri, vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.01.2023, convicted the accused/appellant under Section 354-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), the present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mazumder, that the learned Special Judge passed the impugned judgment and order without appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective and arrived at a wrong finding. Further, the impugned judgment has been passed solely on the basis of the evidence of the victim, who is a 5 years old girl, and there is every probability of tutoring the girl and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. The learned Special Judge (POCSO) also failed to consider the fact that there was strained relationship between the parties and the possibility of lodging the F.I.R. cannot be denied due to the previous enmity between the parties. But, without considering those facts of the case and without appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses in its true perspective, the learned Special Judge (POCSO) arrived at a wrong decision and convicted the accused/appellant accordingly.

7. Further it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are several contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. More so, there is no allegation of any attempt to rape on the victim girl, except the allegation of disrobing her. Furthe