JUDGMENT & ORDER : This is an appeal from jail, preferred by accused/appellant, Sri Jwngblao Narzary, who has been convicted by judgment and order dated 05-08-2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kokrajhar, in Special Case No. 3/2014, arising out of GR Case No. 217/2014, under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’), to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months. 2. I have heard Ms. B Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of accused-appellant, and Mrs. SH Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The fact of the case is that, on 05-06-2014, the victim, aged about 12 years, a student of Class-V, came to a shop at Narenguri from her house, riding a bicycle, to purchase some articles. She purchased the articles and was returning home at about 6.10 p.m. The accused Jawngblam Narzary restrained her on her way, gagged her and took her to the nearby jungle and committed rape on her. She came back home and narrated the incident to her mother. 4. On the above facts, the informant, father for the victim, lodged an FIR, which was registered as Kachugaon Police Station Case No. 20 of 2014, under Section 376 IPC. 5. Police investigated into the case, collected evidence, and finally, submitted charge sheet against the accused/appellant, under Section 376 IPC. 6. On appearance of the accused, charge was framed against the accused-appellant, under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, to which the accused-appellant pleaded innocence. 7. During the trial, prosecution examined 7 witnesses and the defence examined none. The defence plea is of denial. 8. The statement of accused-appellant was recorded as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused-appellant denied the accusations levelled against him in his said statement. 9. PW1, is the victim. In her evidence, she deposed that on the day of occurrence, at about 5.00/5.30 p.m., she went to Narenguri riding a bicycle, to the market to purchase agarbatti. While returning, near a culvert, the accused pushed her following which she fell down. Although she deposed that she did not know the accused by name, yet she knew him to be an inhabitant of the nearby village and that he belonged to Bodo community. While returning, near a culvert, the accused pushed her following which she fell down. Although she deposed that she did not know the accused by name, yet she knew him to be an inhabitant of the nearby village and that he belonged to Bodo community. She stated that she cried after falling down from the bicycle. Then the accused gagged her with a cloth and pressed her neck, and then took her to the nearby jungle. The accused-appellant put off her panty there and penetrated his penis into her vagina. Thereafter, he left the place of occurrence leaving the victim, PW1 there. She came back home and informed about the occurrence to her parents. Her statement was also recorded, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., by Magistrate, during investigation, which she has exhibited as Ext.1. She identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination, she is found to have stated that the occurrence took place in the evening, and just before it became dark. There was none in and around the place of occurrence. She did not know the accused from before, but had come to know him since the date of occurrence. She denied that she had made false accusations against the accused-appellant. 10. PW2, informant, Sri Gohai Murmu, is the father of the victim. He deposed that the victim went to the market, at about 5.30 p.m., to purchase agarbatti. At about 6.00 p.m., she came home back weeping. While enquired about the reason of her weeping, she informed PW2 that while coming back from the market, near a culvert, a boy caused her fall from the bicycle, gagged her and took her to a nearby jungle and committed rape on her. Immediately, he rushed to the President of the local Unit of Bodo Student Union and informed him about the occurrence. Both of them, thereafter, went to the place of occurrence and there one boy gave the name of the accused-appellant to them. Then, both of them went to the house of the accused-appellant and asked about the incident. After initial refusal, the accused-appellant admitted commission of the offence. Next day, there was a meeting in respect of the incident where the accused-appellant admitted his guilt. Thereafter, PW2 lodged the FIR, with the police, vide Ext.2. 11. PW3, Dr Sushma Brahma, who examined the victim, is the Medical and Health Officer-1 in the Civil Hospital. Ext. After initial refusal, the accused-appellant admitted commission of the offence. Next day, there was a meeting in respect of the incident where the accused-appellant admitted his guilt. Thereafter, PW2 lodged the FIR, with the police, vide Ext.2. 11. PW3, Dr Sushma Brahma, who examined the victim, is the Medical and Health Officer-1 in the Civil Hospital. Ext. 3 is the medical examination report of the victim exhibited by this witness. In the medical examination report, the age of the victim, on the basis of radiological examination is found to be either 14 years or above, but below 18 years. Further opinion is that the victim might have been exposed to sexual intercourse. On examination of valva and vagina, PW3 found as follows: “Developed/well developed. Vaginal CANAL – Admit one finger easily. Presence of injuries – Not found. Hymen – Ruptured.” This witness was not subjected to cross-examination by the defence. 12. PW4, Sri Manabendra Narzary, is found to have deposed that they were told about the accused-appellant by one boy and an old lady. In his cross-examination, he is found to have asserted his evidence in the examination-in-chief and denied that the accused-appellant did not commit rape on the victim as well as the fact that he did not state that one boy and one old lady identified the accused-appellant to her. 13. The evidence of PW5, Sri Stipen Mardi, is that after hearing about the occurrence of commission of rape by one boy, he went to the house of the accused-appellant with some other youths. The accused-appellant confessed his guilt before them. There took place a meeting on the next day. 14. PW6, Sri Thomas Narzary, stated that the victim identified the accused-appellant in the meeting, and thereafter, the accused-appellant was handed over to Kachugaon Police Station. 15. PW7, Sri Latak Das, is the Investigating Officer. His evidence is in respect of the investigation carried out by him. He also got the victim examined by a doctor. He also got the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., filed the charge-sheet against the accused-appellant. 16. Although charge-sheet, against the accused-appellant, was filed under Section 376 IPC, the learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge) framed charge against the accused-appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, as stated above. Section 4 of the POCSO Act, reads as follows: “4. 16. Although charge-sheet, against the accused-appellant, was filed under Section 376 IPC, the learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge) framed charge against the accused-appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, as stated above. Section 4 of the POCSO Act, reads as follows: “4. Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.- Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” 17. It appears from the evidence on record that there was no eye witness to the occurrence. The place of occurrence was isolated, as found from the sketch map. Topography of the place of occurrence, as found from the sketch map available in the record, is that on one side there was jungle, on another side, there was paddy field, yet another side there was a beel (natural water body), and on the other side was an irrigation canal and wooden bridge on the road. There were two houses at some distance, away from the place of occurrence and both these houses were located, opposite to each other, in extreme south and extreme north of the place of occurrence. Therefore, naturally, there was none in the immediate vicinity of the place of occurrence. As such, there is no question of anybody witnessing the occurrence. That apart, it has come out unequivocally from the evidence of the victim that she was forced to the jungle where rape on her was committed. The evidence of PW2 is important for the reason that he is not only the informant of the case but also father of the victim. Immediately, after arrival at home, the victim informed the occurrence to her parents, on father asking her as to why she was weeping. The victim, then, explained to him the reason stating clearly that one boy committed rape on her. Therefore, it appears that immediately after the occurrence, the victim being a minor girl, was weeping and informed her parents about the occurrence, which is quite natural. 18. PW7 is a formal witness being the Investigating Officer. The victim, then, explained to him the reason stating clearly that one boy committed rape on her. Therefore, it appears that immediately after the occurrence, the victim being a minor girl, was weeping and informed her parents about the occurrence, which is quite natural. 18. PW7 is a formal witness being the Investigating Officer. His evidence is important because according to him, he got the statement of the victim recorded, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by a Magistrate and in her evidence, PW1 victim, has also deposed that her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and examination of the evidence of PW1, recorded by the Court during the course of trial and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is seen that no such discrepancy is noticed, which makes her evidence doubtful in any manner what so ever. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 07-05-2014 and her evidence was recorded by the learned Court on 06-02-2015, after about more than six months, but her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and that before the trial Court as witness, remained intact on material point. 19. The other witnesses in this case, particularly, PW4, PW5 and PW6 are all witnesses, who were reported about the occurrence and according to them, the accused-appellant admitted his guilt before them. 20. The evidence of PW1 makes it clearly appear that she was raped by an unknown boy, whom she identified later on, while PW4, PW5 and PW6 and her father, PW2 met the accused-appellant. There is absolutely no reason noticed during the evaluation of the evidence on record that there is anything to disbelieve the evidence of victim, PW1, rather her evidence appears to be inspiring confidence. The fact that she did not see the accused before the occurrence and she identified him only in the meeting aforesaid also speaks of her honesty. Had the accused been falsely implicated by her, she would have named her before she could identify him. She has very categorically stated that she did not know the accused from before and only on the date of occurrence, she had seen the accused. Such version in the evidence of victim rather gives credence to the story narrated by her about the commission of rape on her person. She has very categorically stated that she did not know the accused from before and only on the date of occurrence, she had seen the accused. Such version in the evidence of victim rather gives credence to the story narrated by her about the commission of rape on her person. On the other hand, her evidence on commission of rape on her person by accused is further substantiated by the evidence of the doctor, who examined her and found rupture in her vagina and opined that she might have been exposed to sexual intercourse. There is absolutely nothing in the record to disagree with the evidence of the victim, her father and the doctor examined as PW1, PW2 and PW3, respectively. 21. As regards the age of the victim, she herself stated that she is a student of Class-V and is 12 years of age, which is supported by PW2, her father, but the medical evidence shows that she is either 14 years or above 14 years, but below 18 years of age. In any case, there is no dispute that she is below 18 years of age. 22. In the POCSO Act, a child has been defined in Section 2(d) as person below the age of 18 years. Therefore, the offence in the instant case is covered by POCSO Act, the victim being below 18 years of age. 23. The evidence of PW1, the victim, makes it clearly appear that the accused-appellant penetrated his penis into her vagina. The doctor, PW3, found rupture in the vagina of the victim, leaving no doubt that the accused committed penetrating sexual assault on the person of the victim, PW1. 24. As stated above, the evidence of the victim in this case is convincing and inspiring without the aid of other witnesses. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 51 , in paragraph 31 observed as follows: “31. After thorough analysis of all relevant and attendant factors, we are of the opinion that none of the grounds, on which the High Court has cleared the respondents, has any merit. After thorough analysis of all relevant and attendant factors, we are of the opinion that none of the grounds, on which the High Court has cleared the respondents, has any merit. By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons, which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance (See Bhupinder Sharma v. State of H.P). Notwithstanding this legal position, in the instance case, we even find enough corroborative material as well, which is discussed hereinabove.” 26. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence on record, the conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge, needs no interference. 27. The accused-appellant has been imposed with the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence on record, the conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge, needs no interference. 27. The accused-appellant has been imposed with the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. In respect of substantive punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, I have considered the same from the perspective that as per the application, preferring this jail appeal, the accused-appellant has only his old mother and there is none to look after her. Also the fact that from the very beginning, the accused-appellant was cooperating with the investigation of the case, even while he was detected to be the accused by the public and before the police initiated the investigation of the case. The record of Special Case No. 3/2014, does not show that the statements of the accused-appellant was recorded while he was heard on the point of sentence, although, vide order, dated 05-08-2015, he is shown to have been heard on sentence. The accused is also found to be of 30 years of age. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years imposed on the accused-appellant appears to be on the higher side. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, as substantive imprisonment, would be appropriate. Accordingly, the substantive punishment of imprisonment of 10 years is reduced to 7 years in exercise of the power of this Court under Section 386 (c)(iii) of the Cr.P.C. The remaining part of sentence, in respect of fine, no interference is called for. 28. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. 29. Send down the LCR to the Court below with a copy of this judgment and order immediately. 30. Also send a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of District Jail, Kokrajhar, for furnishing the same to the accused-appellant. 31. This Court records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. B Sarma. Learned Amicus Curiae be paid an amount of Rs. 7,000/-, as remuneration.