IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on victim testimony, medical reports, and FSL report to establish the commission of the offence, and the interpretation of the SC/ST Act and POCSO Act in reversing the conviction under the SC/ST Act and modifying the sentence under Section 377 IPC.

Headnote:
POCSO Act - Unnatural Offence - 452, 377, 506 IPC, Section ¾ POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to the conviction under Sections 452, 377, 506 IPC, Section ¾ POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. The court analyzed the evidence of the victim, medical reports, and FSL report to determine the commission of the offences and the applicability of the relevant legal provisions. The interpretation of the SC/ST Act and POCSO Act was crucial in reversing the conviction under the SC/ST Act and modifying the sentence under Section 377 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appellant's conviction under various sections including POCSO Act for subjecting a minor to unnatural offence. The victim's mother filed the complaint, and the evidence included medical examination reports and FSL report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the evidence regarding the place of occurrence but upheld the finding of the commission of the offence based on the victim's and mother's testimony and medical reports. The court reversed the conviction under the SC/ST Act and modified the sentence under Section 377 IPC.
Issues: The issues included the determination of the place of occurrence, applicability of SC/ST Act, and the adequacy of the sentence imposed on the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's and mother's testimony, medical reports, and FSL report to establish the commission of the offence. The interpretation of the SC/ST Act and POCSO Act was crucial in reversing the conviction under the SC/ST Act and modifying the sentence under Section 377 IPC.
Final Decision: The court reversed the conviction under the SC/ST Act and modified the sentence under Section 377 IPC, allowing the appellant's release based on the period already undergone and the payment of fine or completion of default sentence.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.7.2019, passed by the First Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kaushambi in Sessions Trial No.125 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.319 of 2016, under Sections 452, 377, 506 IPC, Section ¾ POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi; whereby the appellant Mohammad Rehan has been convicted under section 452 IPC and sentenced to five years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/-; sentenced to ten years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-under Section 377 IPC; sentenced to two years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2,000/-under Section 506 IPC; sentenced to twelve years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.12,000/-under Section ¾ POCSO Act; sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.15,000/-under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo two months additional imprisonment, each. All the sentences to run concurrently.

2. Informant in the present case is the mother of the eleven year old male child, who has been subjected to unnatural offence. The informant (PW-1) is Pasi by caste and is a vegetable seller. She is a original resident of village Saiyed Sarawan, Police Station Charwa, District Kaushambi and had taken a house on rent in village Akbarpur where she lived alongwith her family. On 20.8.2016 the informant had gone to Mundera Mandi for selling vegetable whereafter she returned at about 3.00 PM. When she arrived at her house she was informed by her ten year old son that he was playing in front of the house when the accused on the pretext of offering toffee took him inside the house and subjected him to unnatural offence. The minor son of the informant was weeping outside the house when the informant returned. Informant then attempted to raise a protest with the accused, who threatened her with knife, whereafter the informant came to the Police Station. On the basis of such written report (Ex.Ka.1) First Information Report came to be lodged at Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi as Case Crime No.319 of 2016 under Sections 377, 506 IPC, ¾ POCSO Act and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. The FIR has been lodged on 21.8.2016 at 7.30 in the morning in respect of incident occurred on the previous day i.e. 20.8.2016 during afternoon hours. The investigation proceeded in the matter and the blood sample and underwear of the victim and the accused was taken and sent for scientific examination to the FSL. The victim was also examined by Dr. Himanshu (PW-5) at the Primary Health Centre, Chail at Kaushambi. Following injuries have been found on the victim:-

“Injury-Redness around anal orifice tear anal orifice inner side 0.5 x 0.1 cm.”

3. In the opinion of the doctor the injury was simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. The victim was referred to district hospital for expert opinion and further evaluation. Investigation proceeded further and ultimately a charge-sheet came to be submitted by the Circle Officer, Chail on 27.8.2016. The concerned Magistrate took cognizance of the charge-sheet and committed the case to the court of Sessions where it got registered as Sessions Trial No.125 of 2016. The concerned court of Sessions framed charges against the accused appellant on 24.6.2017 under Sections 452, 377, 506, ¾ POCSO Act and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. The accused denied the accusations and demanded trial.

4. During the course of trial the informant appeared as PW1 and has supported the prosecution case. The informant alleged that she has four children. She has verified the written report given to the Police. She has fully supported the prosecution case including the recovery of the underwear of the victim. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that there was some dispute between her and the accused on account of non-payment of outstanding amount due for purchase of fish from the accused.

5. PW-2 is the Head Constable, who has proved the police papers.

6. PW-3 i