JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Assam.

2. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant, Sri Mithun Rajbongshi impugning the judgment and order dated 30.01. 2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO), Baksa, Mushalpur in Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 08 of 2018, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- only and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are as follows:-

i. On 29.01.2017, one Maneswar Rajbongshi had lodged an FIR (First Information Report) before the In-charge of Suagpur Police Outpost under Goreswar Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on 23.01.2017, at about 7.00 PM, his minor daughter ‘X’ (real name not disclosed to protect the identity of the victim) was at the house of the neighbour of the first informant sitting by the side of the fire and at that time the appellant went there and enticed and lured her to go to the homestead of one Kamleswar Rajbongshi and thereafter, subjected her to forceful sexual intercourse at that place. It is also stated in the FIR that in connection with the incident, a village meeting (Bichar) was convened on 24.01.2017, wherein the appellant denied the commission of the alleged offence.

ii. Upon receipt of the said FIR, the In-charge of Suagpur Police Outpost made a General Diary Entry, namely GD Entry No. 393 dated 29.01.2017 and forwarded the FIR to the Officer-In-Charge of Goreswar Police Station for registration of a case.

iii. Upon receipt of said FIR, the Officer-In-Charge of Goreswar Police Station registered Goreswar P.S. Case No. 8/2017 under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and initiated the investigation.

iv. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid against the present appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

v. The case being triable by the Court of Special Judge, it was ultimately transferred to the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Baksa, who by order dated 04.02.2019 framed formal charge under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the present appellant. When the said charge was read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

vi. For bringing home the charge framed against the present appellant, the prosecution side examined as many as 8(eight) prosecution witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 during which he pleaded his innocence and denied the truthfulness of the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The appellant declined to adduce any evidence in his defence. However, by the judgement which has been impugned in this appeal, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as already described in paragraph No.2 hereinbefore.

4. Before considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides, let me go through the evidence of prosecution witnesses which is available on record.

5. PW-1, Sri Maneswar Rajbongshi, who is also the first informant in this case has deposed that on the fateful day at about 7:30 PM the appellant went to his house asking for his handcart and on being refused, he went to the house of Suren Rajbongshi where the victim girl was sitting. PW-1 has further stated that by means of inducement, the appellant took the victim girl to the back side of the house of one Kamleswar Rajbongshi and forcefully committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim girl and that this incident was witnessed by Suren Rajbongshi in the light of his torch, when the appellant fled away therefrom. PW-1 further stated that the victim girl returned home crying