The misuse of the POCSO Act can lead to wrongful convictions when evidence is not credible or reliable.

1. In this appeal the appellant who has already undergone four years of sentence has assailed the judgment and order of conviction dated 2nd May, 2016 and sentence dated 3rd May, 2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. 11(III) of 2016 arising out of Sessions Case No. 02(02) of 2016 (Special) convicting the appellant under S.10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''POCSO Act'') and sentencing him for five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with default clause.

2. The appellant was placed on trial to the offence charged under S.376 of the Indian Penal Code alternatively for the offence punishable under S.6 of the POCSO Act.

3. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant submits that the learned judge has relied on the weak evidence based on surmise and conjecture inasmuch as the defence case led by the appellant after his examination under S.313 of the Cr.P.C. were not taken into consideration which resulted in failure of justice.

4. It is also submitted that the prosecution witnesses having embellished their earlier statements under S.161 Cr.P.C. have contradicted one another and are not in general agreement as the material witness being the victim has been tutored by the police to make the statement which fact is well evident from the ocular testimony of the victim herself.

5. P.W.1 the victim during her cross - examination has clearly stated on oath that police tutored her to make statement before the learned Magistrate and also to adduce evidence in the Court. According to victim version appellant Debu Majumder is a good person yet in her examination - in - chief deposed that she was taken to the roof of the house by Debu Majumder who touched and sucked her vagina. No doubt the evidence so laid by the prosecution is very serious in nature but the fact remains that she has in crystal clear term deposed in her cross - examination that it was the police who tutored her to make such statement before the learned Magistrate and to adduce evidence before the Court. A written complaint was scribed and her grandmother (Dida) had signed on it as tutored by police and other men, she stated all these things to all the places. Her mother and the grandmother took her to the police station along with her maternal uncle and Laxman (PW 4). According to her, she started crying when she was rebuked by Debu Majumder (Dada). Her mother told her not to take anything from anyone but as she had not taken any logence from her Dada, her Dada rebuked her and she started crying. On hearing her cry neighbourer came and hot altercation took place between the members of their house and the Debu Majumder, the appellant herein.

6. Mother Protima Halder deposed in her examination - in - chief that when her daughter was coming from the house of the appellant crying, she asked the reason for her cry. Her daughter deposed that the appellant forcibly gave her logence and that she was taken to the roof of the house of the appellant who had touched her vagina and sucked it. This resulted in the family dispute between the two.

7. During cross - examination, she deposed having seen her daughter return home with logence in her hand, she rebuked her and asked as who had given her logence. On her disclosure that Debu Majamuder provided her logence, she went to appellant's house and asked why he provided logence to her daughter where she found the son and wife were there with the appellant.

8. Taking into consideration, the evidence during cross - examinat