ORDER

Date : 09-03-2021 Heard Mr. T. Tayeng, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned P.P., Arunachal Pradesh.

This is an interlocutory application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for suspension of the order, dated 23.12.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, East Siang District, Pasighat, in PSG(POCSO) C/No. 10/2018, convicting the accused applicant/appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence u/s. 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 2 months in custody which shall run concurrently.

The aforesaid PSG(POCSO) C/No. 10/2018 arose out of an First Information Report(FIR)

lodged by one Sri Obyak Ering, step-father of the victim, before the Officer-in-Charge, Pasighat Police Station, on 17.10.2017, accusing the applicant/appellant of sexually assaulting the victim, aged about

7 years, by putting his fingers in the private part of the victim, for the past 4 months.

The applicant/appellant is stated to be working as a Gate Chowkidar of the K.V. School, Pasighat.

On the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report(FIR), Pasighat Police Station Case No.

186/2017 u/s. 376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was registered and on completion of the investigation, the Charge-Sheet having been filed u/s. 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, vide order, dated 18.12.2020, had convicted the applicant/appellant, to be guilty of the offence u/s. 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced him to under rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with default stipulation, thereof.

Mr. Tayeng, learned counsel, while pressing for the release of the applicant/appellant on bail and also for suspension of the sentence, referred to hereinabove, have argued that there is a glaring discrepancy between the confessional statement recorded u/s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the deposition made by the victim before the Court, which are also not corroborated by a medical evidence and therefore, the learned Special Judge, Pasighat, in convicting the applicant/appellant solely on the basis of the statement of the victim which is not found to be a sterling witness of a very high quality and calibre, have erroneously convicted the applicant/appellant without any legally admissible evidence.

In support of his submission, Mr. Tayeng, learned counsel, has relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 [Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State(NCT of Delhi)] for the proposition that sterling witness should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should be unassailable.

By relying on the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, has argued that in view of the contradictions of the victim in the statement recorded u/s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as well as the deposition made in the Court and without any corroboration of a medical evidence, the said statement of the victim could not have been relied upon by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for conviction of the applicant/appellant.

Mr. Tsering, learned P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, on the other hand, submitted that conviction in a case of this nature, can be made solely on the basis of the statement of the victim if such statement of the victim remains unshaken and inspires confidence during the examination and cross-examination made in the Court.

By referring to the deposition of the victim i.e. PW-3, wherein the victim had identified the accused standing on the d