IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the victim's statement and the appellant's admission, leading to the determination of the nature of the offence committed under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appeal arises out of a judgment of conviction passed on September 28, 2018 and the consequential sentence under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for the appellant to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of the payment of the fine, the appellant is to suffer a further term of imprisonment for a year.

2. According to the appellant, at the highest, the case may be one of sexual assault without there being any penetration, particularly in view of the statement of the victim and how the victim described the incident to a relative. The appellant says that there was a delay of about a year in the matter being reported. As to the appellant's confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant submits that the same should be read in the context of the actual complaint by the victim herself.

3. The first information report came to be lodged on July 29, 2014 upon the mother of the victim, who was eight years old at the time of the incident, being informed of the incident by a cousin of the victim in whom the victim confided. The relevant cousin informed the victim's mother of the incident on July 27, 2014. It is not clear as to when the incident happened, except that, according to the victim, it was on a Sunday, several months before she reported the matter to her cousin and it happened at Nongstoin market.

4. According to the victim's statement made under Section 164 of the Code, on that particular Sunday, she was asked by her mother to buy kwai (betel nut), whereupon she went to the market and bought kwai and, while returning home, a man who was sitting on the road called out to her. The victim claimed that she recognised the face of the man and answered his call as she perceived that he also wanted betel nut. The victim recounted that when she went near the man, he asked her to enter a shop where he made her lie down on a bed, removed her panties while the man also took off his trousers and underpants. In the exact words of the victim, what happened thereafter, was that 'He then took out his penis & inserted (it) inside my private parts.' The girl said that she was in pain and, even after substantial passage of time, she still felt some pain. The victim narrated that she felt scared as the offender had threatened to kill her if she reported the matter to anyone. She recalled that after some time she told Lari, her aunt's daughter, about the incident.

5. The appellant submits that the above version of the victim was not maintained by her in course of her oral evidence at the trial. The victim was examined as PW3 and the material part of her statement in her examination-in-chief was as follows:

'...on the date of incidence (sic, incident) the date, month and year I could not recollect as of now but I remember it was a Sunday, my mother sent me to buy betel nut, when I returned from buying the betel nut, the accused person called me inside one shop. The accused was alone in the said shop, I went as I thought that the accused want me to buy betel nut for him, but instead he asked me to take out my underwear but I did not obliged to his demand. Then he took it off by himself. He asked me to opened my mouth I did not open, he then pulled down his trouser and underwear and he came on top of me after some times he let me go and threatened to kill me if I dare to disclosed about the incidence to anyone. After that I went back home I did not dare to informed my mother as I was scared of the accused person. After a lapse of few months I told my cousin sister whom we use to call Lari that one person came on top of me and Lari disclosed the same to my mother...'

6. The appellant next refers to the deposition of the relevant cousin as PW4. According to such cousin, the victim told her that a man once called her into a shop and then asked her to open her underwear. According to