Inconsistent testimony and delay in formal accusations led to acquittal; simply slapping does not equate to outraging modesty under law.

1. Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State - respondent.
The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2017, passed by the learned Special Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in connection with the Case No. Special (POCSO) 14 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted under S.8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 and thereby sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4(four) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and in default to pay the fine to suffer R.I. for 6(six) months.

2. On the basis of a written complaint dated 08.09.2016 lodged by one Pranath Nath, the father of the victim girl, the Officer - in - Charge of Kanchanpur Police Station had registered an FIR against the appellant herein. The complaint so lodged disclosed the fact that on 05.09.2016 both his son Sri Partha Nath and his daughter Papiya Nath went to the house of their neighbour Sri Anukul Nath, the appellant herein to watch television when Sri Anukul Nath, the appellant took his 9 years old daughter on his lap by grasping her hand and started to press her breast. The daughter felt pain and reacted when his son Partha Nath looked back at his sister asking what had happened. At that time, the accused - appellant shouted at him and said to him - "you have come to watch TV so just watch TV. What do you see there?" Then his son out of fear went on watching TV. Later on, after returning back to the home, his daughter narrated the entire incident to her mother and started crying. The complainant returned back to his home at 9:00 p.m. when he received the information from the mother of the victim girl.
The complainant had explained the delay in filing the ejahar at the police station that he was with the hope of meeting social justice but he did not get. Accordingly, investigation was carried on and after being satisfied with the materials prima facie, the Investigating Officer had submitted charge sheet against the appellant under S.354 of IPC and S.8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .

3. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and charge was framed under S.354 of IPC and S.8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused - appellant.
3.1. In course of trial as many as 9(nine) witnesses were examined and the prosecution also introduced 6(six) documents which were marked as Exhibits. The excerpts of the statement of Sri Joggeswar Nath (P.W.4) recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. was also brought on record and marked as Exbit.A.

4. On completion of trial, the accused - appellant was put under examination under S.313, Cr.P.C. where he pleaded his innocence. The accused - appellant, in this case had produced three witnesses to prove his innocence. These three witnesses are his wife namely Archana Rani Nath (D.W.1), two labours namely Sri Swapan Nath (D.W.2) and Sudip Nath (D.W.3).

5. Learned Special Judge after appreciation of the materials on record had convicted and sentenced the accused - appellant as aforestated.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

7. The victim girl was examined as P.W.1. She in her examination - in - chief has stated that on 05.09.2016 went to the house of the appellant to watch one TV serial "Kiranmala" at that time, the appellant took her on his lap and started to press her breast. She felt pain and