The conviction under the POCSO Act was upheld based on the victim's credible testimony, despite challenges regarding the victim's age and corroborative evidence.

1. Heard Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2019 delivered in Special (POCSO) 59 of 2016 by the Special Judge (POCSO), West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act, in short) and he has been sentenced to suffer six years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. It has been also directed that if the fine money is recovered that shall be paid to the victim.

3. The prosecution against the appellant was launched, an FIR was registered on the basis of complaint filed by one Manidipa Das (PW-1), Teacher in-Charge of Barjala Higher Secondary School (Primary Section) on 06.09.2016. By the said complaint, the Teacher in Charge reported to the Officer in Charge, West Agartala Police Station that on 06.09.2016 at about at 09.05 hrs one Tushar Singha (the appellant herein) having entered into a primary section of the school outraged the modesty of the victim (the name is withheld for protecting her identity) and made certain unfair comments. PW-1 requested to take appropriate action and ensure security of the victim. On the basis of the said complaint, West Agartala Women PS Case No. 2016 WAW 071 was registered under Section 354(A)(1 )(i)(iv) of the IPC and under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

4. PW10 (Smt. Shipra Das) investigated the case and filed the final police report chargesheeting the appellant. On the basis of the police report, the Special Judge (under POCSO Act) framed the charge under Section 354(A)(1 )(i)(iv) of the IPC and also under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, for committing aggravated sexual assault within the definition of Section 9 of the POCSO Act. The appellant pleaded his innocence and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many 10 as witnesses including the complainant, parents of the victim and the teachers who were present on the relevant day and time and one student who was present close to the victim when the occurrence took place. That apart, the prosecution adduced three documentary evidence including the complaint (Exbt-1) and the site map (Exbt-2). After recording the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313(1 )(b) of the CrPC for having the response of the appellant against the incriminating materials as surfaced in the evidence. The appellant in respect of some of the incriminating materials has raised no objection and in respect of the others which have incriminated him, he had responded by stating that those are all false and concocted to implicate or to frame him with the charge. Thereafter, the Special Judge having appreciated the evidence, held that the appellant, according to him, is guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 354(A)(1)(i)(iv) of the IPC and under Section 10 of the POCOS Act as the prosecution has proved those charge beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Having considered the culpable mind of the appellant, the Special Judge is of the opinion that he should be given maximum punishment as can be given under the same charge. Accordingly, having considered the provision of the Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of six years and pay Rs.5000