JUDGMENT: P.S.Rana, J. Present appeal is filed against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Chamba in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2014 titled State of H.P. vs. Aman @ Ram decided on 30.10.2014. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on 28.12.2013 at about 5.30 PM minor prosecutrix aged six years was playing near her house. It is alleged by prosecution that appellant called the minor prosecutrix and took minor prosecutrix to old dilapidated quarter of H.P.PWD situated at Tala locality and thereafter opened trouser of minor prosecutrix aged six years and committed sexual assault under POCSO Act 2012. It is alleged by prosecution that in the meanwhile Smt. Usha who is relative of minor prosecutrix reached at the place of incident. It is alleged by prosecution that minor prosecutrix was crying and blood was oozing out from her private parts. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW1 Usha and PW7 Radhika took minor prosecutrix to police station and reported the matter and FIR Ext.PW1/A was registered by PW6 Additional SHO Harnam Singh. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter Additional SHO Harnam Singh sent minor prosecutrix to regional hospital Chamba with lady C. Puja for her medical examination. It is alleged by prosecution that minor prosecutrix was medically examined by PW8 Dr. Swati Mahajan. It is alleged by prosecution that medical officer namely Dr. Swati Mahajan observed that bleeding was present upon vagina of minor prosecutrix which was red in colour. It is alleged by prosecution that medical officer issued MLC Ext.PW8/A. It is alleged by prosecution that PW8 Dr. Swati Mahajan preserved undergarments and vaginal swab of minor prosecutrix and thereafter handed over the same to Investigating Agency. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW6 Harnam Singh visited the spot of incident and prepared site plan Ext.PW6/D. It is also alleged by prosecution that PW6 Harnam Singh obtained photographs of spot Ext.PW6/A-1 to Ext.PW6/A-5 and recorded statement of minor prosecutrix and statement of complainant Usha as per their versiosn. It is alleged by prosecution that on 30.12.2013 Harnam Singh PW6 produced minor prosecutrix before Judicial Magistrate Chamba who recorded statement of minor prosecutrix. It is alleged by prosecution that on 30.12.2013 Harnam Singh PW6 produced minor prosecutrix before Judicial Magistrate Chamba who recorded statement of minor prosecutrix. It is alleged by prosecution that statement of minor prosecutrix recorded before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Chamba was video graphed by PW3 Vikram Singh and CD thereof Ext.PW6/F was prepared. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW6 Harnam Singh obtained birth certificate of minor prosecutrix Ext.PW6/G and as per birth certificate of minor prosecutrix minor prosecutrix was born on 2.7.2007. It is alleged by prosecution that PW6 Harnam Singh deposited the clothes of minor prosecutrix along with vaginal swab with PW5 Neeraj Kumar and same were entered into malkhana register Ext.PW5/A. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter clothes and vaginal swab of minor prosecutrix along with documents were handed over to Abdesh Kumar with direction to deposit the same in the office of RFSL Dharamshala along with RC No. 4 of 2014 Ext.PW5/B. It is also alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW4 C. Abdesh Kumar deposited the articles handed over to him by PW5 MHC Neeraj Kumar at RFSL Dharamshala, which were examined by Scientific Officer and Assistant Director Biology and Serology at Dharamshala and report Ext.PW6/H was sought. It is alleged by prosecution that accused was also medically examined and opinion of medical officer was sought and medical officer has opined that accused was capable to perform sexual intercourse and MLC Ext.PA of accused was obtained. 3. Charge was framed by learned Sessions Judgecum- Special Judge Chamba (H.P.) against appellant Aman @ Ram under Section 376 IPC and under POCSO Act 2012. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined eight oral witnesses in support of its case and also tendered documentary evidence. 5. Learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. Learned trial Court sentenced the appellant to simple imprisonment for a period of three years and also imposed fine to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) under the Protection of Children from Sexaul Offences Act 2012. Learned trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Learned trial Court further directed that period of detention of convict during investigation and trial shall be set off. Learned trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Learned trial Court further directed that period of detention of convict during investigation and trial shall be set off. Learned trial Court also directed that fine amount if realized shall be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court convict filed present appeal. 7. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused the entire record carefully. 8. Following points arises for determination in the present appeal:- Point No. 1 Whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court caused miscarriage of justice to the appellant as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? Point No. 2 Final Order. 9. Reasons for findings on point No.1: 9.1. PW1 Usha has stated that she is working as Class- IV employee in T.V. Hospital Chamba. She has stated that name of her sister-in-law is Radhika who resides in her neighbourhood and she has two sons and a daughter. She has stated that age of her daughter is six years old. She has stated that on 28.12.2013 at about 5.30 PM she had sent her son to bring vegetables from market and when she was going in search of her son she saw that minor prosecutrix was lying near old government building which was fallen into dilapidated condition. She has stated that minor prosecutrix was crying and her body was bleeding. She has stated that she lifted the minor prosecutrix and took minor prosecutrix to police station. Witness was declared hostile by prosecution. She has denied suggestion that she has told to police officials that accused present in Court committed sexual assault with minor prosecutrix. She has denied suggestion that she has seen the accused committing sexual assault upon minor prosecutrix and she has denied suggestion that as accused is her relative she has resiled from her earlier statement given to investigating agency. 9.2 PW2 minor prosecutrix aged six years has stated that accused called her and took her to a dilapidated old house which was situated near her house. 9.2 PW2 minor prosecutrix aged six years has stated that accused called her and took her to a dilapidated old house which was situated near her house. Minor Prosecutrix has stated that she was playing near her house. Minor prosecutrix has stated that accused opened her trouser and placed his hand in her private parts. Minor prosecutrix has stated that in the meanwhile her aunt came at the spot and rescued minor prosecutrix from accused. Minor prosecutrix has denied suggestion that there were many residential houses near the place of incident. Minor prosecutrix has denied suggestion that there were hospital and police station near the place of incident. Minor prosecutrix has denied suggestion that accused did not meet her. Minor prosecutrix has also denied suggestion that accused did not lift her to place of sexual assault. Minor prosecutrix has denied suggestion that accused did not place his hands in her private parts. Minor prosecutrix has denied suggestion that accused did not remove her trouser. Minor prosecutrix has denied suggestion that her family has inimical relations with family of accused. Minor prosecutrix has denied suggestion that she had sustained injuries due to fall on stony surface. Minor prosecutrix has denied suggestion that she is tutored by her family to give statement in Court. 9.3 PW3 Vikram Singh has stated that he is posted as Constable in general duty at P.S. Chamba since 2010 and on 30.12.2013 he went to the Court of Judicial Magistrate Chamba where minor prosecutrix was produced for recording her statement. He has stated that he switched on the camera and placed same on table of learned JMIC Chamba who recorded statement of minor prosecutrix which was video graphed by camera placed by him. He has stated that he handed over the CD to JMIC Chamba. 9.4 PW4 Abdesh Kumar has stated that he is posted as Constable in general duty in P.S. Sadar Chamba. He has stated that he handed over the CD to JMIC Chamba. 9.4 PW4 Abdesh Kumar has stated that he is posted as Constable in general duty in P.S. Sadar Chamba. He has stated that on 4.1.2014 MHC Neeraj Kumar P.S. Sadar Chamba handed over to him one parcel sealed with six seals of RH Chamba stated to be containing trouser and vaginal swab of minor prosecutrix along with sample seal and one envelope sealed with three seals of RH Chamba addressed to RFSL Dharamshala along with one more parcel sealed with ten seals of RH Chamba stated to be containing underwear, trouser and pubic hairs of accused along with sample seal vide RC No. 4 of 2014 with direction to deposit in the office of RFSL Dharamshala. He has stated that he did not tamper with case property and after depositing the aforesaid articles he returned RC to MHC. He has denied suggestion that no case property took by him to office of RFSL Dharamshala and also denied suggestion that he did not deposit the case property in office of RFSL Dharamshala. 9.5 PW5 HC Neeraj Kumar has stated that he is posted as MHC in P.S. Sadar Chamba since January 2013 and on 30.12.2013 SI Harnam Singh deposited with him one cloth parcel sealed with six seals of RH Chamba stated to be containing vaginal swabs and trouser of minor prosecutrix along with sample seal. He has stated that he also deposited with him one another cloth parcel sealed with ten seals of RH Chamba stated to be containing underwear, trouser and pubic hairs of appellant along with two envelops each sealed with three seals of RH Chamba with direction to deposit in the office of RFSL Dharamshala (H.P.). He has stated that he entered the case property in malkhana register and on 4.1.2014 he handed over the aforesaid articles to constable Abdesh Kumar with direction to deposit in the office of RFSL Dharamshala vide RC No. 4 of 2014 who after depositing the same at RFSL Dharamshala returned RC to him. He has stated that he did not tamper with case property when case property remained in his custody. He has stated that copy of malkhana register is Ext.PW5/A and copy of RC is Ext.PW5/B and same are true and correct as per original record. He has stated that he did not tamper with case property when case property remained in his custody. He has stated that copy of malkhana register is Ext.PW5/A and copy of RC is Ext.PW5/B and same are true and correct as per original record. He has stated that he issued CIPA certificate Ext.PW5/C which bears his signatures. He has denied suggestion that no case property was deposited with him by Harnam Singh and also denied suggestion that he did not send the same to RFSL Dharamshala (H.P.). 9.6 PW6 SI Harnama Singh has stated that he is posted as Additional SHO in P.S. Sadar Chamba since November 2013 and on 28.12.2013 at about 7 PM Smt. Usha came in police station along with her sister-in-law and minor prosecutrix. He has stated that Smt. Usha Devi made her statement regarding incident which was recorded in computer. He has stated that he recorded statement as per version given by Smt. Usha Devi. He has stated that thereafter he sent minor prosecutrix for her medical examination through lady C. Puja and also moved application Ext.PW6/A. He has stated that mother of minor prosecutrix and her aunt also accompanied minor prosecutrix to hospital and thereafter he along with ASI Ashok and two home guards visited the house of accused and interrogated the accused and arrested him at 8.15 PM vide memo Ext.PW6/B. He has stated that accused was also medically examined and he filed application for medical examination of accused Ext.PW6/C. He has stated that on 29.12.2013 he visited the spot and prepared site plan Ext.PW6/D. He has stated that he also obtained photographs of spot Ext.PW6/A-1 to Ext.PW6/A-5 and thereafter he recorded statements of minor prosecutrix and her mother as per their versions. He has stated that he also recorded supplementary statement of Usha as per her version. He has stated that on 30.12.2013 statement of minor prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before learned Judicial Magistrate Chamba. He has stated that statement of minor prosecutrix recorded before learned Judicial Magistrate Chamba was also video graphed and CD Ext.PW6/F was prepared. He has stated that he also obtained birth certificate of prosecutrix Ext.PW6/G. He has stated that on 5.3.2014 he received FSL report Ext.PW6/H and recorded statements of HC Neeraj and Abdesh Kumar as per their versions and after completion of investigation he prepared challan and presented in criminal Court. He has stated that he also obtained birth certificate of prosecutrix Ext.PW6/G. He has stated that on 5.3.2014 he received FSL report Ext.PW6/H and recorded statements of HC Neeraj and Abdesh Kumar as per their versions and after completion of investigation he prepared challan and presented in criminal Court. He has denied suggestion that he has recorded statement of Smt. Usha according to his own convenience and he has denied suggestion that he has also recorded statement of prosecutrix as per his own convenience. He has denied suggestion that he has prepared site plan as per his own convenience. He has denied suggestion that relations between the accused and complainant party are strained. He has denied suggestion that he has filed false criminal case in connivance with complainant. 9.7 PW7 Radhika has stated that she is housewife and she has two sons and one daughter. She has stated that her one son is residing with his aunt at Pathankot and one is studying in tenth class. She has stated that age of prosecutrix is 7 years and further stated that on 28.11.2013 her relative disclosed her that accused took prosecutrix in an old dilapidated building and thereafter he removed her trouser and committed sexual assault upon minor prosecutrix. She has stated that thereafter she went to the house of accused. She has stated that accused threw water on her and threatened her with dire consequences. She has further stated that she and her relative Smt. Usha took prosecutrix to police station and thereafter FIR was lodged. She has stated that her relative disclosed about incident to her at about 5/5.30 PM. She has denied suggestion that her relative did not disclose the incident to her and also denied suggestion that she did not visit police station along with her relative Usha and minor prosecutrix. She has denied suggestion that due to enmity she has deposed falsely. 9.8 PW8 Dr. Swati Mahajan has stated that she is posted as medical officer in RH Chamba from 1.2.2015 and on 28.12.2013 police moved an application Ext.PW6/C for medical examination of minor prosecutrix. She has stated that prosecutrix was brought by lady C. Puja with alleged history of sexual assault by someone. She has stated that minor prosecutrix was conscious cooperative well orientated to time place and person. She has stated that after medical examination she observed as under. She has stated that prosecutrix was brought by lady C. Puja with alleged history of sexual assault by someone. She has stated that minor prosecutrix was conscious cooperative well orientated to time place and person. She has stated that after medical examination she observed as under. (1) There were multiple small papules over trunk and neck. There was no mark of injury over breast. There was no evidence of external injury. (2) Menstrual history has not attained menarche yet. Per vaginal examination prosecutrix was not cooperative. Pubic hairs were not present. Labia Majora was not fully developed. Labia minor was not visible. Fourchette was narrow. Hymen was not ruptured. Fingers were not going inside the vagina. Bleeding was present on vagina which was red in colour. She has stated that undergarments of minor prosecutrix along with vaginal swabs were preserved and handed over to police. She has stated that she issued MLC Ext.PW8/A which is in her hands and bears her signature. She has stated that as per her final opinion there was nothing to suggest that sexual assault has not taken place. She has stated that if somebody inserts single finger or other hard object inside the vagina the injuries mentioned in MLC Ext.PW8/A are possible. She has stated that if somebody falls on sharp object the injuries mentioned in MLC are possible however such possibility is quite remote. 10. Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has stated that he is innocent and witnesses have deposed falsely. No defence evidence adduced by accused. 11. Prosecution produced following documentary evidence. (1) Ext.PW1/A copy of FIR. (2) Ext.PW5/A Extract of register No. 19. (3) Ext.PW5/B Copy of RC. (4) Ext.PW5/C CIPA certificate. (5) Ext.PW6/A Application to medical officer for medical examination of minor prosecutrix. (6) Ext.PW6/A-1 to Ext.PW6/A-5 photographs. (7) Ext.PW6/B Arrest memo of accused. (8) Ext.PW6/C Application for medical examination of accused. (9) Ext.PW6/D Site plan. (10) Ext.PW6/E Statement of minor prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (11) Ext.PW6/F CD. (12) Ext.PW6/G Birth certificate of minor prosecutrix. (13) Ext.PW6/H RFSL report. (14) Ext.PW8/A MLC of minor prosecutrix aged six years. (15) Ext.PA MLC of accused Aman aged 22 years. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that minor prosecutrix has made tutored version and reliance could not be placed on her testimony is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. (14) Ext.PW8/A MLC of minor prosecutrix aged six years. (15) Ext.PA MLC of accused Aman aged 22 years. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that minor prosecutrix has made tutored version and reliance could not be placed on her testimony is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Age of minor prosecutrix in present case was six years at the time of incident. Learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Chamba has put questions to the minor prosecutrix in order to ascertain whether minor prosecutrix was matured to give her statement before the Court. Learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Chamba has observed during trial of case that minor prosecutrix was matured to give her statement. Minor prosecutrix has specifically stated before learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge that person should always speak the truth. Minor prosecutrix has stated that it is sin to tell a lie. Thereafter minor prosecutrix has stated in positive manner that when she was playing near her residential house then appellant took her in a dilapidated old house and opened her salwar and thereafter opened his own trouser and thereafter placed his hand upon her private parts. Minor prosecutrix has specifically denied suggestion that she was tutored by her family members to give statement in Court. She has denied suggestion that she has sustained injuries due to fall on stony surface. Hence it is held that minor prosecutrix is not tutored witness and it is held that testimony of minor prosecutrix is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. It is well settled law that Court should be sensitive while dealing with cases of sexual assault upon the minor prosecutrix. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that no injury of any kind was found upon body of minor prosecutrix and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Appellant was convicted by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Chamba (H.P.) under Section 8 of POCSO Act 2012. POCSO Act is a special Act. POCSO Act was enacted to provide protection to minor children from criminal offence of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography. Article 15 of Constitution of India inter alia confers the power upon the State to make special provisions for children. POCSO Act is a special Act. POCSO Act was enacted to provide protection to minor children from criminal offence of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography. Article 15 of Constitution of India inter alia confers the power upon the State to make special provisions for children. Article 39 of Constitution of India inter alia provides that State shall frame policy so that tender age of children should not be abused and their childhood and youth should be protected from exploitation and minor children should be given facilities to develop in healthy manner and in atmosphere of freedom and dignity. Sexual assalt is defined under Section 7 of POCSO Act 2012. 14. As per Section 7 of POCSO Act whoever with sexual intent touches the vagina of minor prosecutrix then offence under Section 7 of POCSO Act 2012 relating to sexual assault is made out. In present case minor prosecutrix PW2 has specifically stated in positive manner that accused caught her and took her to a dilapidated old house and thereafter opened her trouser and thereafter accused opened his own trouser and thereafter accused placed his hand upon vagina of minor prosecutrix. It is held that even touching the vagina of minor prosecutrix with sexual intent is sexual assault under Section 7 of POCSO Act 2012. Sexual assault with sexual intent is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of minor prosecutrix which is trustworthy and reliable. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that testimony of minor prosecutrix is not corroborated by any oral or documentary evidence and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW1 Usha has specifically stated that minor prosecutrix was lying near old government building and her body was bleeding. PW1 Usha has stated in positive manner that she lifted the minor prosecutrix. Thereafter immediately minor prosecutrix was produced before medical officer Dr.Swati Mahajan. Incident took place at 5.30 PM on 28.12.2013 and minor prosecutrix was medically examined by medical officer at 9.20 PM on same day. Minor prosecutrix at the time of medical examination was six years. PW8 Dr. Swati Mahajan has stated that bleeding was present in vagina of prosecutrix which was red in colour. Hence it is held that testimony of minor prosecutrix is also corroborated by medical officer PW8 Dr. Swati Mahajan. Testimony of PW8 Dr. Minor prosecutrix at the time of medical examination was six years. PW8 Dr. Swati Mahajan has stated that bleeding was present in vagina of prosecutrix which was red in colour. Hence it is held that testimony of minor prosecutrix is also corroborated by medical officer PW8 Dr. Swati Mahajan. Testimony of PW8 Dr. Swati Mahajan is also trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. 16. Testimony of minor prosecutrix is further corroborated by report submitted by RFSL Dharamshala Ext.PW6/A wherein there is special recital in positive manner that blood was detected in vaginal swabs of minor prosecutrix aged six years. There is positive recital in report submitted by RFSL Dharamshala that human semen was detected on underwear of accused. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that appellant was falsely implicated in present case due to enmity is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Accused did not lead any defence evidence despite opportunity granted by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Chamba. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that there were inimical relations between the minor prosecutrix and accused. There is no oral or documentary evidence placed on record in order to prove inimical relations between the accused and family members of minor prosecutrix. It is held that plea of appellant that he has been implicated due to inimical relations is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made by person without proof.) 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that police station was at a distance of 100-200 metres from place of incident and house of accused is situated at the distance of 10 metres from police station and road was very busy road and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Minor prosecutrix has specifically stated in positive manner that accused took the prosecutrix to an isolated place which was dilapidated building. Photographs Ext.PW6/A-1 to Ext.PW6/A-5 placed on record by prosecution proved in positive manner that place where appellant had committed sexual assault upon minor prosecutrix was isolated place. 19. Minor prosecutrix has specifically stated in positive manner that accused took the prosecutrix to an isolated place which was dilapidated building. Photographs Ext.PW6/A-1 to Ext.PW6/A-5 placed on record by prosecution proved in positive manner that place where appellant had committed sexual assault upon minor prosecutrix was isolated place. 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that judgment of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Chamba is based upon surmises and conjectures and learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Chamba did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Testimony of minor prosecutrix is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court in present case. Testimony of minor prosecutrix is further corroborated by PW3 Vikram Singh who has videographed the statement of minor prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate and is also corroborated by testimony of PW4 Abdesh Kumar who took the parcels in office of RFSL Dharamshala for chemical examination. Testimony of PW2 minor prosecutrix is also corroborated by testimony of PW5 who has stated that case property was deposited with him by ASI Harnam Singh and thereafter case property was deposited in office of RFSL Dharamshala (H.P.). Testimony of PW2 minor prosecutrix is corroborated by PW7 Radhika mother of minor prosecutrix and is also corroborated by PW6 ASI Harnam Singh. Testimony of minor prosecutrix is further corroborated by documentary evidence i.e. MLC of minor prosecutrix placed on record and MLC of accused placed on record. As per birth certificate Ext.PW6/G placed on record minor prosecutrix was born on 10.7.2007. It is proved on record that as per medical certificate Ext.PA placed on record accused was capable for performing sexual intercourse. 20. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that there are material contradictions and improvements in testimonies of prosecution witnesses produced by prosecution and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case incident took place on 28.12.2013 at about 5.30 PM in old dilapidated building of HPPWD in Tala Chamba town and evidence of prosecution witnesses were recorded on 12.5.2014, 17.6.2014, 18.6.2014, 30.7.2014 after gap of sufficient time. In present case incident took place on 28.12.2013 at about 5.30 PM in old dilapidated building of HPPWD in Tala Chamba town and evidence of prosecution witnesses were recorded on 12.5.2014, 17.6.2014, 18.6.2014, 30.7.2014 after gap of sufficient time. It was held in case reported in (2010)9 SCC 567 titled C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu that even if there are some omissions contradictions and discrepancies then entire evidence would not be discarded. It was held that undue importance should not be given to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the root of the case. See AIR 1972 SC 2020 titled Sohrab and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, See AIR 1985 SC 48 titled State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony, See AIR 1983 SC 753 titled Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, See AIR 2007 SC 2257 titled State of Rajasthan vs. Om Parkash, See (2009)11 SCC 588 titled Prithu alias Prithi Chand and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, See (2009)9 SCC 626 titled State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Santosh Kumar and others, See AIR 1988 SC 696 titled Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat, See AIR 1999 SC 3544 titled Rammi alias Rameshwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, See (2000)1 SCC 247 titled State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj and another, See (2004) 10 SCC 94 titled Laxman Singh vs. Poonam Singh and others, See (2012)10 SCC 433 Kuriya and another vs. State of Rajasthan. It was held in case reported in (1996)2 SCC 384 , titled State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and others that testimony of prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of entire case and trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations. . (Also see (2000)5 SCC 30 titled State of Rajasthan vs. N.K. the accused. Also see (2000)1 SCC 247 titled State vs. Lekh Raj and another. Also see (1992)3 SCC 204 titled Madan Gopal Kakkad versus Naval Dubey and another). 21. It is well settled law that maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal law. (See: AIR 1980 S.C.957 Bhe Ram Vs. State of Haryana, See AIR 1971 S.C. 2505 Rai Singh Vs. The State of Haryana. Also see (1992)3 SCC 204 titled Madan Gopal Kakkad versus Naval Dubey and another). 21. It is well settled law that maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal law. (See: AIR 1980 S.C.957 Bhe Ram Vs. State of Haryana, See AIR 1971 S.C. 2505 Rai Singh Vs. The State of Haryana. See AIR 2006 SC 321 titled Triloki Nath and others vs. State of U.P.) It was held in case reported in AIR 1973 SC 944 titled Jose vs. State of Kerala that conviction can be given on testimony of solitary witness in criminal case if testimony of witness inspires confidence of Court. It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 S.C. 1328 Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab that there is no hard and fast rule which could be laid down for appreciation of evidence and it is a question of fact and each case has to be decided on the fact as they proved in a particular case. 22. Even as per Section 30 of POCSO Act 2012 there is presumption of culpable mental state of accused and Special Court is under legal obligation to presume the existence of such mental state. Accused did not adduce any positive oral and documentary evidence on record in order to prove that he had no such mental state relating to sexual assault under POCSO Act 2012. It is well settled law that in sexual assault cases direct evidence is not available beyond evidence of victim. It is well settled law that testimony of victim in sexual assault cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of statement of prosecutrix Court should not find difficulty to act upon testimony of prosexutrix alone to convict accused person if testimony of victim of sexual assault inspires confidence and is reliable. Corroborative evidence is not imperative component in every sexual assault case. Corroboration is not sine qua non for conviction in sexaul assault case. 23. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that offence under Section 376 IPC is not proved in present case and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Corroboration is not sine qua non for conviction in sexaul assault case. 23. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that offence under Section 376 IPC is not proved in present case and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Chamba has not convicted appellant under Section 376 ICP but learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Chamba has convicted the appellant under Section 8 of POCSO Act 2012. It is held that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant took minor prosecutrix aged six years towards an isolated place and thereafter removed her salwar and thereafter removed his own trouser and thereafter touched the vagina of minor prosecutrix with his fingers intentionally and voluntarily with intent to commit sexual assault with minor prosecutrix aged six years. Aged of accused at the time of sexual assault was twenty two years and accused was major at the time of commission of sexual assault upon minor prosecutrix. 24. Case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant i.e. (2014)5 SCC 389 titled Radhey Shyam vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012)8 SCC 73 titled K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013)11 SCC 150 titled Hamza Humammedkutty alias Mani and others vs. State of Kerala, (2006)3 SCC 643 titled Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum vs. Union of India and others, (2009)5 SCC 740 titled Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod vs. State of Gujarat are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case. Facts of present case and facts of cases cited supra are different. In the cases cited supra by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant case was not registered under POCSO Act 2012 but present case is registered under POCSO Act 2012 which is a special Act. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra point No.1 is answered in negative against appellant. Point No. 2 (Final Order) 25. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra appeal filed by appellant is dismissed. Judgment and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Chamba under POCSO Act 2012 is affirmed. It is held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It is held that no miscarriage of justice is caused to appellant. Judgment and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Chamba under POCSO Act 2012 is affirmed. It is held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It is held that no miscarriage of justice is caused to appellant. File of the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Chamba along with ceritified copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith. Appeal stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.