JUDGMENT :

RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 12.02.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi, District Sidhi in S.T. No.60/2014, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant in following terms as under:-

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that, as per the prosecution case, on 17.02.2014 at about 08:30 p.m., when the prosecutrix, aged about 8 years, was at home with her two nieces and her mother, brother, and sister-in- law had gone to attend a Barahon function at a relative’s house, the appellant/accused allegedly committed forcible sexual intercourse with her without her consent. It is further submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to a prior dispute between him and the mother of the prosecutrix. It is also contended that there are several contradictions, omissions, and improvements in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and therefore no implicit reliance can be placed upon such evidence. Additionally, it is argued that the medical report does not support the version of the prosecutrix, and according to the doctor, no definite opinion regarding forcible sexual intercourse could be given by Dr Babita Khare (PW-9) and as per her opinion, an attempt was made to have sexual intercourse with victim. In such a situation, the accused cannot be held guilty under Section 376 IPC r/w Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the appellant be acquitted from the aforesaid charges.

3. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, supported the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. From the evidence of Lavkush Pandey (PW-8), it appears that in the Scholar Register of the Govt. High School, Paigma victim's date of birth is recorded as 08.08.2005 at Sl. No.1868. This witness had also produced the original record/register of Session year 2006 before trial Court, which is Ex.P-6. On the basis of his evidence, it appears that victim's date of birth is 08.08.2005 and the date of incident is 17.02.2014. Mother of victim (PW-2) and Bhagirathi Kol (PW-3) have also stated that the age of victim was eight years and that fact was not challenged by the defence counsel in the cross- examination of those witnesses. As far as the question of the age of the victim is admittedly proved that at the time of incident, she was less than 10 years.

6 . Prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed in her statement that at the time of incident, she was studying in Class-III in Government School, Village Paigma. There was Barho function at the house of her elder sister and she along with her all family members went there. Due to sleep, she came back to her house along with her two nieces. While she was sleeping in her house, the accused came, caught hold of her, inserted his hand inside her underwear, and thereafter inserted his penis into her vagina, causing bleeding. Upon her raising an alarm and crying, her sister-in-law (bhabhi) arrived, and the accused fled away. She informed her mother about the incident, who in turn informed other family members. She was in pain and bleeding from her vagina. The next morning, her mother took her to Police Station Bahri, where the report (Ex.P-1) was lodged. Her consent for medical examination was obtained (Ex.P-2). In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she had not identified the accused and reaffirmed that she had identified him.

7. PW-2, the mother of the prosecutrix, stated that at the relevant time her daughter was 8 years old and studying in Class III. When she returned home, she found her daughter crying and bleeding from her private parts. The prosecutrix informed her that the