The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code in cases of sexual assault involving minors, the importance of considering the testimony of rape victims, and the impact of rape on the victim, as well as the principles established by previous court decisions.

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned amicus curiae for the accused-appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the judgment as well as the record of the trial Court.

2. In the present judgment, I do not propose to mention the name of the victim girl in view of the provisions of Section 228A I.P.C. and in pursuance of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-4 in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shree Kant Shekari (AIR 2004 SC 4404) the prosecutrix (hereinafter referred to as 'victim').

3. Before I deal with the issues raised before this Court, at the outset some aspects of the case needs to be expressed. On the material placed before me, it is beyond the pale of any doubt or controversy that the victim of the offence, allegedly committed by the appellant, was a child' within the meaning of the expression defined in Section 2(1)(d) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”, she being below the age of 18 years at the relevant point of time. In view of the nature of offences involved, she is entitled to the protection envisaged by law in Section 33(7) of POCSO Act. To put it simply, the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 Kushinagar at Padrauna was duty bound to ensure that her identity was "not disclosed at any time". However, this precaution was given a go-by during the proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions Judge throughout the judgment.

4. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Session Trial No. 228 of 2013 (State vs. Chhatradhari), under Sections 376 I.P.C. and Section 5(d)/6 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali Hata, District Kushi Nagar. By the impugned judgment and order, learned trial judge has convicted the accused-appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo one year simple imprisonment. Accused-appellant has also been convicted and sentenced to ten years RI and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 5(d)/6 of POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo one year simple imprisonment.

5. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 02.06.2013 Smt. Vidya Devi, wife of Vishnu Gaur, resident of Padri Khas, Post Office Sukrauli, Police Station Kotwali Hata, District Kushi Nagar submitted a written report at 4.10 PM (Exhibit Ka-2) at Police Station Hata, District Kushi Nagar alleging therein that on 02.06.2013 at about 12.00 noon, when her daughter aged about seven years was sleeping in her house, accused-appellant Chhatradhari entered into her house and forcefully tried to commit rape on the daughter of the complainant and inserted his fingers in her vagina. On hearing the shriek of the victim, the neighbourers rushed to the spot and witnessed the incident. On the basis of written report Exhibit Ka-2, police registered a case at Crime No. 324 of 2013, under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 4/6/8 of POCSO Act. After the case was registered, investigation commenced and the victim was got medically examined on 03.06.2013. Spot inspection was also conducted by the Investigating Officer and site plan Exhibit Ka-9 was sketched. After completing the investigatory formalities on the basis of sufficient evidence charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-11 for the offences punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and under Sections 4/6/8 of POCSO Act was submitted.

6. In the case in hand, after culmination of investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 376 IPC and 4/6/8 of POCSO Act, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly mentioned section 5(d)/6 of POCSO Act in the charge, which in my opinion does not amount to failur