Consistent victim testimony and supporting age documentation suffices for conviction under sexual offences, affirming the trial court's judgment when no contradictions exist.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.08.2019, passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO), North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in connection with case No. Special (POCSO) 07 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the convictappellant has been convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year along with a fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation, for commission of offence

punishable under Section 354 A(1)(i) of IPC and further to suffer R.I. for 3(three) years along with a fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation, for commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

2. Facts, as projected by learned Special Judge are reproduced hereunder:

'The factual backdrop of the case is that one Smt. Gouri Nath, wife of Samiran Nath of East Huplong, Ward No.04, PS-Dharmanagar, North Tripura District lodged an Ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of Dharmanagar Women Police Station to the effect that on 18-04-2018 at about 0200 hours at night her victim daughter (real name withheld) along with her father and two younger brothers went to see the 'Kali Nritya' of Charak Puja at Radhapur Bhumihin Colony and after seeing the 'Kali Nritya' at about 0330 hours the victim along with her father returned home and thereafter her father went to sleep and the victim went out to attend natures call and at that time Pintu Nath came there and with sexual intent touched her private parts and there was also another boy and when the two younger brothers of the victim came and finding the victim missing in the house started calling her by her name and hearing their call the sister in law of the complainant also came and then the accused persons fled away. It is also stated that the complainant was not at home on the date of the incident and after coming home hearing the fact of the incident from her victim daughter she lodged the complaint.'

3. Based on the aforesaid facts, the Officer-in-Charge of Dharmanagar Police Station had registered the FIR No.2018 WDN 009 under Sections 354 /34 of IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused-appellant and took up the investigation.

4. During investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statements of the victim girl; arranged for her medical examination; seized her birth certificate (Exbt.3 series) as well as the school certificate (Exbt.7); arranged for T.I. parade to confirm the identity of the accused and also arranged for recording statements of the victim girl under Section 164(5) of CrPC. Having satisfied that a prima facie case is established, the investigating officer had submitted charge-sheet.

5. At the commencement of trial, charges were framed against the accused-appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 /34 of IPC. It was read over to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

6. During trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 7 witnesses.

7. After conclusion of trial, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he stated that he had been falsely implicated with the case and claimed to be innocent.

8. Learned Special Judge had held that the charges framed against the accused-appellant had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, learned Special Judge had convicted and sentenced the accused as aforestated.

9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before