The court upheld the conviction for sexual offences against a minor, affirming the credibility of the victim's testimony and medical evidence.

The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 24/12/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Special Child Case No.30/2018, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. The appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven and ten years, respectively, with fine amount of Rs.2,000/- on each count.

The case of the prosecution can be culled out as under :

02] The victim, a male child of eleven years, who hails from Mumbai, came to visit his grandmother at Malegaon during holidays. On the day of incident i.e. on 25/05/2018, the grandmother of the victim went out for work. The victim was playing outside the house. The appellant, who is a neighbour and acquainted with the victim, came there and took the victim boy to a nearby hut, situated near Swami Samarth Temple for playing. Both felt thirsty and the appellant took the victim boy inside the hut. The appellant closed the door from inside. The appellant made the victim boy lay down and remove his underwear below the knee and committed forcible carnal intercourse in the anus of the victim boy. The appellant also slapped the victim. When the victim boy made hue and cry, the appellant left him and let the victim go. When the grandmother of victim returned home at about 06:30 p.m., the victim informed the incident to her. The informant i.e. the grandmother of victim, lodged the oral report [Exh.11] with Malegaon Police Station, whereby the law was set in motion. The victim boy was sent for medical examination. The appellant was arrested. He was also subjected to medical examination. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Sections 377, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. and under Sections 4 and 5(m) of the POCSO Act.

03] In support of its case, the prosecution has examined in all six witnesses i.e. the informant (PW-1), the grandmother of the victim at Exh.10; the victim (PW-2) at Exh.14; Dr. Sandip Devrao Wadhwe (PW-3), who examined the victim as well as the appellant at Exh.18; Santosh Kisan Kamble (PW-4), the panch to the spot-panchnama at Exh.21 and lastly, Sanjay Natthu Gawai (PW-5), A.S.I. at Exh.28 and Sukeshini Uttamrao Jamdade (PW-6), P.S.I, at Exh.35. Whereas, the appellant did not examine anybody in his defence. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Special Court recorded the conviction by impugned judgment and order. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

04] Mr. R.K. Maheshwari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the trial Court has committed serious error in holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 377 of I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, without there being any independent eye- witness. It did not consider the material omissions and contradictions in the version of the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial Court also did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in proper perspective, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the findings rendered by the trial Court are unsustainable and are required to be set aside by allowing the appeal.

05] Per contra, Mr. H.D. Futane, learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1/ State vehemently submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the victim as well as the medical evidence on record. According to him, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. He supported the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court and sought rejection of the appeal.

06] I have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and oth