JUDGMENT :

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.

The appeal challenges judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 24.02.2003 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Special Court under POCSO Act) Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhari, in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2020, arising out of FIR No. 85 dated 27.05.2020, under Section 376-AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Partap Nagar.

2. Vide impugned judgment, appellant was convicted under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

3. The facts, as enumerated in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. are that complainant (father of the minor prosecutrix) stated in his complaint to the police that he had a son and two daughters. His younger daughter ‘A’ was about four years old. That day, when he came home from work, his wife informed him that when ‘A’ was playing in the Temple near their house, at about 5:30 p.m. their neighbour Sandeep Kumar son of Ram Sharan removed her underwear and sexually abused her. She disclosed that the child was perplexed out of pain and had narrated the incident to her. He further stated that Sandeep Kumar had forcibly raped his daughter. Legal action was prayed for.

4. On the complaint, the FIR was registered. The minor victim was medico legally examined. Her date of birth certificate was taken into police possession. She was twice produced in the Court for recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but did not say anything regarding the incident. Her counselling was done. Appellant was arrested, medico-legally examined and samples were sent to FSL. Scaled site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and challan was presented in the Court.

5. Vide order dated 27.01.2021, appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 376-AB of Indian Penal Code, 1860. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses in the case. PW-1 Mulakh Raj proved the scaled site plan Ex.P1. PW-2 Sulender Kumar proved formal FIR Ex.P2 and his endorsement Ex.P3. PW-3 ‘B’ father of the victim child deposed on the lines of his complaint Ex.P4 which he proved. PW-4 Satbir CHC Khizrabad proved Ex.P6 birth certificate of victim recording her date of birth as 22.11.2016. PW-5 ‘S’ mother of the victim deposed regarding date of birth of ‘A’ and the incident dated 27.05.2020 when the victim came home crying and narrated the incident to her. PW-6 ‘M’ the minor victim also deposed about the incident in her own words. PW-7 HC Suman proved recovery memo Ex. P10 of the sealed parcels made over by the Doctor to the Investigating Officer. PW-8 Manju Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Yamunagar, conducted medico-legal examination of the victim vide MLR Ex.P12 on application Ex.P11 and deposed regarding handing over sealed parcels to the IO. She opined that possibility of sexual assault upon the victim could not be ruled out. PW-9 HC Balwinder Singh tendered affidavit Ex.P13 regarding deposit of case property with him being MHC of Police Station. PW-10 ASI Rajbir Singh proved disclosure statement Ex.P14 of the appellant, demarcation of place of occurrence Ex.P15 as also recovery memo of the sealed parcels made over by the Doctor Ex.P16. PW-11 ASI Kamla Rani investigated the case and deposed regarding various steps of investigation. PW-12 Doctor Gaurav Dahri, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Yamuna Nagar, proved application Ex.P19 for medico-legal examination of appellant and his MLR Ex.P22. PW-13 Doctor Rajeev Kawatra, Assistant Director (S) DNA Division FSL, Madhuban, Karnal, proved his report Ex. PY/PW13, PW-14 Doctor M.K. Malik, SSO Biology Division RFSL, Moginand Panchkula, proved his report Ex.PX.

7. Learned Spe