JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned A.G.A. and Sri J.B. Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State and perused the record.

2. Challenge in this criminal appeal is the judgment and order dated 24.08.2018 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O Act, Jhansi in Special Sessions Trial No. 134 of 2016 (State v. Sonu Kushwaha), arising out of Case Crime No. 167 of 2016, under Section 377, 506 I.P.C. & Section 6 of P.O.C.S.O Act, Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi, whereby the learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O Act, Jhansi has convicted and sentenced the appellant, under Section 377 I.P.C. with rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months additional imprisonment; under Section 506 I.P.C. one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month additional imprisonment and under Section 6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act ten years rigorous impairment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of paymen of fine, three months additional imprisonment. All sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. Tersely put, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Sri Dev Singh lodged an F.I.R. against the appellant Sonu Kushwaha on 26.03.2016 at Chirgaon, District Jhansi stating therein that on 22.03.2016, at about 05:00 hours in the evening, appellant Sonu Kushwaha came to complainant's house and took his son aged about 10 years in the temple at Hardaul. There appellant gave Rs. 20 to complainant's son i.e. victim and said to suck his penis. Appellant Sonu Kushwaha put his penis into the mouth of the victim. Thereafter, victim came to the house having that Rs. 20. At this, complainant's nephew Santosh asked to victim that from where he got Rs. 20, then victim told the entire happening occurred with him. Appellant also threatened the victim not to disclose about the incident to anybody.

4. On the written report submitted by complainant, a case was registered against the appellant in Case Crime No. 167 of 2016, under Section 377, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O Act, P.S. Chirgaon, District Jhansi.

5. Investigating officer collected the evidence and submitted charge sheet against the appellant in Case Crime No. 167 of 2016, under Section 377, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O Act, P.S. Chirgaon, District Jhansi.

6. The then Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-1, Jhansi charged the appellant under Section 377, 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 of P.O.C.S.O Act. Appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.

7. Prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence to prove the charges against the appellant. Proseuction produced PW1 complainant Dev Singh, PW2 Victim, PW3 S.I. Rajesh Kumar Verma, PW4.

8. After conclusion of the evidence, statement of appellant under section under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The appellant denied the evidence produced by prosecution and stated that witnesses have tendered false evidence owing to enmity.

9. In defence, appellant has produced PW1 Raj Kumar, DW2 Ghanshyam.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parites, learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge(P.O.C.S.O. Act), Jhansi has convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.

11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, Jhansi appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that offence under Section 6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act is not made out against the appellant and he has been wrongly convicted under Section 6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act. He further argued that the offence committed by appellant falls in the category of under Section 9(M) of P.O.C.S.O. Act.

13. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the appellant has been rightly convicted. Ap