JUDGMENT

1. The appellant as the accused was convicted in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 45 of 2015 for committing an offence punishable under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, by judgment dated 26.03.2021 and sentence dated 31.03.2021, and was directed to undergo imprisonment for five years and six months and fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) in default of payment to further undergo another year of imprisonment.

2. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and sentence, the appellant has approached this Court with this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C, 1973.

3. A brief background of the matter leading to the preference of this appeal germinates from an FIR lodged on 01.08.2015 before the Officer-In-Charge, Khanapara Police Station, Ri-Bhoi District by respondent No. 3/complainant to the effect that, a complaint was made alleging that the appellant herein had sexually assaulted the minor victim, son of the complainant who came to know of the incident when the said son told the complainant that he should not be punished if he failed in his exams and on being asked what happened, he explained that the appellant/accused had sexually assaulted him many times during the night time and he dare not tell anyone even to his aunt, the wife of the accused because he was afraid.

4. Accordingly, a case was registered being Khanapara P.S. Case No. 33(8) of 2015 under Section 377 IPC read with Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the chart sheet indicating that a prima facie case was found well established against the appellant/accused for which he has to stand trial.

5. The learned Special Judge (POCSO) took cognizance of the offence in Special POCSO Case No. 45/2015 and charges were framed under Section 377 IPC & under Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act against the accused on 21.03.2016. However, on 05.03.2021, the learned Special Judge has altered the charges and the appellant/accused was thereafter charged with the offence under Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act.

6. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses and after closure of the prosecution's evidence, the statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and on being allowed to adduce evidence from his side, the appellant/accused called three witnesses to the witness box and their evidence was recorded as DW-1, DW- 2 and DW- 3 respectively. On consideration of the argument of the parties, the Trial Court vide the impugned judgment had accordingly convicted the appellant/accused herein under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

7. Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that basically, the appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and sentence as the same was based solely on the evidence of the alleged victim whose testimony was full of contradiction and discrepancies, the second limb of the argument is that the appellant was not given the opportunity of a fair trial, inasmuch as, the witnesses were not recalled for re-examination after the charges were altered which was done right before the judgment was pronounced.

8. Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned AAG arguing on behalf of the State respondent has submitted that there is no infirmity found in the impugned judgment and the same being well reasoned, the conviction of the appellant is justified and may not be disturbed by this Court.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has found fault with the evidence of the PW-1, who is the mother of the victim and who has lodged the FIR on 01.08.2015 and has submitted that the statement of this witness in the court in comparison with the statement made under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C shows that there is discrepancy and marked improvement. An instance was pointed out when in the FIR, this witness has stated that the incident occurred about one month back, while in her statement under Section