The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the definitions of sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence for the offence of sexual assault.

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order on Sentence, both dated 31-10-2014, passed by the Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), South Sikkim at Namchi, in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No. 04 of 2014, convicting the Appellant under Section 9/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act"), sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, with a default clause of imprisonment, and also convicting him under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, this appeal has been preferred. The facts in a nutshell, are that, on 20-02-2014 at about 17.00 hours, P.W.2 a resident of Lower Namphing, South Sikkim, lodged Exhibit-3 the FIR, informing therein that the Appellant had attempted to sexually assault his seven year old daughter, P.W.1, at around 13.30 hours, in a jungle. Based on Exhibit-3, Temi Police Station Case was duly registered on the same date under Section 376/511 of the IPC and taken up for investigation.

2. Investigation revealed that on the relevant day, P.W.2 was out of his house on account of his carpentry works. P.W.3 the mother of the victim after sending her children to school went to the nearby fields to collect fodder. At around 1 p.m. while she was still at the fields she heard P.W.1 crying noisily and went to ascertain the cause. The victim thereupon narrated the incident to her. Other students returning from school also narrated the incident to P.W.3 as they had seen the Appellant absconding from the area. The Appellant for his part on the fatal day at around 09.30 hours saw the victim P.W.1, going to her school. At around 12.30 hours he hid in the jungle below his house waiting for the victim as he was aware that she would employ the same route to return. When the victim thus returned, the Appellant dragged her about 50 ft. into the jungle, undressed her and tried to sexually assault her. To muffle her cries the Appellant clamped her mouth with his hand on which he was bitten by the victim, who then escaped. P.W.6 and other students of her school, saw P.W.1 crying and running away from the spot. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant under Section 376/511/341/342 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. The Learned Trial Court framed charge against the Appellant under Section 341 of the IPC read with Section 5 of the POCSO Act punishable under Section 6 of the same Act and under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC. Trial commenced on a plea of "not guilty" by the Appellant. In a bid to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt the prosecution produced ten witnesses. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the Appellant was duly examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") where he once again denied the allegations against him and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case. The final arguments of the parties were heard and the Learned Trial Court on analysis of all of the above arrived at the conclusion that the Appellant had committed the offences, as already detailed hereinabove, and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

4. Before this Court, Learned Counsel for the Appellant expostulated that although it is the prosecution case that the victim was dragged for about 50 ft., her medical examination does not fortify this allegation. That P.W.6 has nowhere stated that the Appellant was running away and, in fact, when P.W.6 met P.W.1 while returning from school, she found her crying and on enquiry, P.W.1 told her that a drunkard had dragged her, thus the Appellant was neither identified as the assailant nor did P.W. 1 tell P.W.6 that he had sexually assaulted her. P.W.9 the Doctor who medically examined P.W.1 has under cross-examination admitted that the cause of "mild erythema