JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The appellant/convict has filed the instant appeal against the judgment dated 29.8.2019 and order dated 31.8.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby he has not only been convicted for offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “POCSO Act”) but also under Section 376-AB of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 376-AB IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.09.2018 at around 2:00 p.m., the victim, aged about 10 years, a student of 6th Class, was playing in the Varandah of her house while her mother (complainant) PW1 Kamlesh Kumari was watching TV when appellant came there and asked about the shop (Patanjali), where Ram Dev's products were sold. The appellant took the victim with him and did not return for about 45 minutes. Thereafter, complainant went to Ram Dev's shop in the village, but, the victim was not found there. The complainant returned and reached near Jagro Tailor's shop, where she came to know that appellant had taken the victim towards Kangu ‘nalla’. Thereafter, she alongwith PW4 Nirmala Devi alias Rumila Devi went towards Kangu ‘nalla’ in search of the victim and there, they met Ranjha and his wife Saroj, who were accompanying the victim near the fields. They told that the appellant took the victim to ‘nalla’ and she was crying. They both went to the place, and on seeing them the appellant fled away. Ranjha and his wife Saroj also told that thereafter, Saroj put on the ‘Pajami’ of the victim. Saroj also told that the appellant was doing the wrong act with the victim. After reaching home, the complainant asked the victim about wrong act committed with her by the appellant. She also physically examined the victim by opening her Pajami and found her private part to be swollen. Thereafter, the complainant went to the house of appellant and then the appellant telephoned Panchayat Pradhan Parkash Chand and the complainant talked to Pradhan Parkash Chand from the telephone of the appellant. The complainant claimed that thereafter she alongwith victim went to the house of Pradhan Parkash Chand, who also called Panch Sunita Devi to his house. Pradhan informed Police Station and thereafter, the complainant alongwith victim visited Police Station Shahpur at about 5:00 p.m. The matter was reported to the police and case FIR was registered. The medical examination of the victim was got conducted at Civil Hospital, Shahpur. During investigation, the police visited the spot of occurrence on the identification given by the victim and during investigation, the police seized the clothes of prosecutrix i.e. ‘Kameez’ and ‘Pajami’, ‘and sealed in a cloth parcel. The birth certificate of the prosecutrix was also procured from Secretary Gram Panchayat Basnoor. The photographs of the spot were taken by the Investigating Officer. During further investigation, the statement of the victim under section 164 of Cr.P.C. was got recorded before the Magistrate and the appellant was arrested.

3. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the matter was committed to the court of sessions, where charges, as aforesaid, were framed against the appellant.

4. The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him.

5. The learned trial court, after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid and hence, the instant appeal.

6. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are totally perverse as the trial court has been swayed only by emotio