Corroboration of the victim's testimony by medical evidence and the Forensic Science Laboratory report is crucial in establishing the commission of the offence.

JUDGMENT :

Appellant has filed appeal challenging the judgment/order dated 28.01.2017/21.02.2017 passed by the trial Court, whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under :-

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.07.2015, victim, who was a student of 3rd class, was playing in the school ground near the residential quarter of the complainant. At about 7:00 p.m., the victim had informed the wife of the complainant that he was feeling pain in his anus. On further inquiry, the victim disclosed that appellant had called him in the field situated near the school ground and had removed his pajama and had put his private part again and again in his anus. The victim had started screaming and on being noticed by wife of Surinder, appellant released the victim and the victim had fled away from the spot. Victim was chased by the appellant, but he was unsuccessful in catching him.

3. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR No.111, dated 22.07.2015, was registered at Police Station Theog, under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’).

4. After completion of the investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.

5. Charges were framed by the trial Court against the appellant under Section 377, IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, vide order dated 17.11.2015. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial.

6. During trial, prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove its case. Appellant, when examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), after close of the prosecution case, prayed that he had been falsely involved in this case. Appellant examined one witness in his defence.

7. The trial Court, vide impugned judgment/order, ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal by the appellant.

8. We have heard Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Kamal Kant, learned Deputy Advocate General and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

9. As per the prosecution story, appellant had committed the offence of sodomy. The victim, in the present case, was a boy aged about 7 years at the time of the incident.

10. With regard to establish the age of the child, prosecution has examined PW-8 Prem Singh. The said witness has proved the certificate Ext. PW8/A. A perusal of Ext. PW8/A reveals that the date of birth of victim was 05.02.2008. Thus, the victim was little more than 7 years old at the time of the incident.

11. Victim, while appearing in the witness box as PW-7, has deposed that he was a student of 3rd class and on 22.07.2015, he was playing in the school ground. Appellant came there and offered that he would take him for an outing. Appellant took him towards his fields and put his private part in his anus (usnay apni pisab wali jagha meri latrine wali jagha mai daali). Appellant was smelling of alcohol. He had felt pain. Appellant had laid him on the ground and had pushed him. In the meantime, a lady came there. Thereafter, he put on his pajama. Appellant had chased him. He had narrated the incident to his mother and he was taken to the police station.

12. Complainant, whi