1. We have heard Mr. Surendra Kumar, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned APP for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted under S.376 of the Indian Penal Code and S.4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 vide judgment dated 07.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge - VI - cum - Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aurangabad in POCSO Case No. 33 of 2020. By order of the same date, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer RI for one year for the offence under S.4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, keeping in mind the provisions contained in S.42 of the Act.

3. The Trial Court has also directed for payment of Rs. 3 lakhs compensation to the victim.

4. The victim is eight years old and is alleged to have been raped by the appellant who claims himself to be 70 years of age. The appellant is a neighbour of the victim. According to the prosecution case, the victim was raped by the appellant while she was playing in front of his house on 07.06.2020. The victim came back home and narrated about the incident to her mother (PW - 2), who lodged the written report on 09.06.2020. In her written report, PW - 2 has narrated about the occurrence as was told to her by the victim.

5. At the trial, she supported the accusation but admitted that the written report was written by her brother / Mumtaz Alam (PW - 5). The occurrence had taken place, according to her, when the victim was playing along with Habiba and Noori, the two other children of the locality, who incidentally have not been examined. In fact, Habiba and Noori also had told PW - 2 that the appellant had taken the victim inside his house. She had seen blood in the private parts of the victim. According to her, the appellant is a married person with many children living under the same roof. One of the sons of the appellant, viz., Aftab, at the relevant time, was a Ward Member. The suggestion given to PW - 2 that the appellant has been made accused in this case because Aftab had some dispute with PW - 2 or her husband regarding construction of public drain in front of her house, was vehemently denied by her. She had taken the victim to Aurangabad hospital for treatment even though there is a Government Hospital and police station in Deo. The treatment to the victim was given on the next day of the occurrence at Aurangabad.

6. The appellant was arrested from his house. He had not run away.

7. From her deposition, there is one disclosure of fact which is different from what was narrated by the victim. The appellant is a married man with several children, many of whom are majors, who all reside in the same house. However, the victim in her cross - examination has referred to the appellant as the lone person residing in that house. However, such statement of the victim has to be appreciated in the context of the victim being only eight years of age.

8. We have also found from the records that there was no sincere effort at disputing the minority of the victim.

9. Before we refer to the medical opinion of Dr. Kusum Kumari (PW - 4), it would be more appropriate to refer to the evidence of the victim herself (PW - 1). After the Trial Court was satisfied on v oir dire about her capabilities of answering questions, her statement was recorded. According to her, the occurrence had taken place at bout 12 O'clock in the day while she was playing outside the house of the appellant. The appellant is said to have called her inside the house, dashed her to the ground, undressed her and thereafter put his finger in her private part and also tried to perform penetrative sex. She went back home and narrated about the occurrence to her mother who informed about that to her father as well. However, when she narrated about the occurrence to her mother, her mother did not call persons of the locality. According to her, she was medically examined after four days of the occurrence.

10. This state