JUDGMENT : Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J. 1. This is an appeal from jail, preferred by accused/appellant, Sri Shiv Charan Talukdar, who has been convicted by judgment and order dated 30.09.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari, in Special (P) Case No. 06/2016, arising out of Mukalmua Police Station Case No. 10 of 2016, under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for another period of one month and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for another period of one month, for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Sentences are ordered to run concurrently. I have heard Ms. S Kanungoe, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of accused-appellant, and Mrs. SH Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. The prosecution case is based on the fact that the victim, aged about 13 years, was dragged from the road to the agricultural field, at about 9.00 p.m. on 12-01-2016. There the accused-appellant committed rape on her, and thereafter, released her at about 1.00 a.m. in the next morning. 3. On receipt of the FIR, Mukalmua Police Station registered a case, vide Case No. 10 of 2016, investigated into it, collected evidence, got the victim examined by doctor, caused recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and on completion of investigation, finally submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant, under Section 376 (2) (i) of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act'). 4. On receipt of the case, on being committed to it, learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari tried the case, and on conclusion of the trial, convicted the accused-appellant, as indicated above. 5. The learned trial Court framed formal charge against the accused-appellant under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, to which the accused-appellant pleaded innocence. 6. During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and the defence none. 7. Now, the question before this Court for determination is: Whether the accused-appellant committed rape on the victim, a minor girl, as alleged and whether the accused-appellant committed penetrating sexual offence upon the victim? 8. 6. During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and the defence none. 7. Now, the question before this Court for determination is: Whether the accused-appellant committed rape on the victim, a minor girl, as alleged and whether the accused-appellant committed penetrating sexual offence upon the victim? 8. For the decision of the above issues, this Court has scanned the evidence on record. 9. In the instant case, admitted position is that, none witnessed the occurrence. Therefore, the evidence of PW 2, the victim and PW 4, the doctor appears to be most important for guiding this Court to take a decision on the issues mentioned above. 10. The evidence of the victim, examined as P W2, is that the occurrence took place at about 7.30 p.m. It has come out from the evidence of the victim that while she was returning from the house of her grandmother, at about 7.00 p.m., the accused-appellant dragged her to the nearby field and rapped her there. The accused left the place of occurrence, leaving her there itself. While she came home back, her house was locked from inside as her father was sleeping. She was outside her house in the veranda. Her father noticed her in the morning only, she disclosed the incident to her father, who, in turn, made a telephonic call to her mother, who was at Hajo at the relevant time. After her mother came back, she was also narrated the occurrence by the victim. Thereafter, her mother lodged the FIR, vide Ext. 1. 11. In her evidence, PW 1 appears to have asserted that rape was committed on her person by the accused-appellant against her will and that at the relevant point of time, she was a minor of 13 years of age. During the cross- examination, the defence failed to elicit anything to discard the evidence of the P W2/victim on the core issue of commission of rape on her person. It has also come out from the cross-examination of PW 2 that while her father confronted the accused-appellant with the facts of the case and enquired from him whether he would marry her or not, the accused-appellant flatly refused. 12. As PW 4 is the doctor, Mrs. It has also come out from the cross-examination of PW 2 that while her father confronted the accused-appellant with the facts of the case and enquired from him whether he would marry her or not, the accused-appellant flatly refused. 12. As PW 4 is the doctor, Mrs. Dali Gogoi, Senior Medical and Health Officer, SMK Civil Hospital, Nalbari, who examined the victim in connection with the aforesaid police case, on police requisition, and after radiological examination, found the victim to be about 14 years of age and below 18 years of age. She found her hymen torn, no other injuries were, however, found. The evidence of victim, recorded in the Court, as PW 2 and her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C, appears to be so consistent on the core issue of commission of rape on her person that there is nothing to disbelieve her evidence on that count. 13. The victim was a minor at the relevant point of time is, in fact, not disputed. The medical evidence, vide Ext. 3 makes it appear that victim was above 14 years and below 18 years of age. 14. The victim, PW 2 also deposed, at the relevant time of occurrence, she was studying in Class-VI and aged about 12/13 years. 15. PW 5, Ranjit Choudhury, father of the victim, deposed that on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 15-06-2016, her daughter/victim was aged about 14 years. That means, at the time of occurrence, the victim was six months less than 14 years and as such she is below 14 years of age. The medical evidence, read in combination with evidence of PW 5 and also with that of victim/PW 2, does not leave this Court with any doubt that victim was minor, below 18 years of age. 16. The victim examined as PW 2 stated in her evidence that she disclosed the facts of occurrence to her mother in the next morning, and her mother, examined as PW 1, also corroborated such evidence that she was informed by the victim about the occurrence. 17. The other witnesses are only reported about the occurrence and none of them have independent knowledge. 18. PW 6, Ajit Das, the Investigating Officer of the case, whose evidence is of routine nature relating to process and procedure about the various stages of investigation of the case and the action he had taken during the investigation. 17. The other witnesses are only reported about the occurrence and none of them have independent knowledge. 18. PW 6, Ajit Das, the Investigating Officer of the case, whose evidence is of routine nature relating to process and procedure about the various stages of investigation of the case and the action he had taken during the investigation. 19. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the case has been proved by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and the evidence of the victim is completely reliable, based on which the order of conviction can be sustained. 20. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that there is no evidence, except the evidence of PW 2/victim in respect of commission of rape on her person. In so many words, learned Amicus Curiae suggested that there is no corroboration of the evidence of the vie- 21. The law is well settled on this issue. If the evidence of victim of rape is inspiring confidence and reliable, this Court can act on such evidence. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar @ 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. 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. 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." 23. In view of fact that the Court has already found that the evidence of victim to be reliable and inspiring confidence on the commission of rape on her person, by the accused-appellant as well as the fact already proved that she is a minor below 18 years of age, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari is based on evidence on record and requires no interference by this Court. 24. So far as the substantive punishment imposed upon the accused-appellant is concerned, the learned trial Court has sentenced the accused-appellant to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for another period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for another period of one month, for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 25. 500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for another period of one month, for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 25. This Court has gone through the provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act As provided under Section 42 of the Act, in the considered view of this Court, the learned Sessions Judge could not have convicted and imposed the sentence against the accused- appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and under Section 376 (2)(i) of the IPC. The accused-appellant could have been convicted and sentenced under the provision of one of the statutes only. That being so, so far as the sentence is concerned; this Court modifies the same as under: On conviction, the accused-appellant is sentenced to 7 years of simple imprisonment for committing penetrating sexual offence, under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, which according to this Court, will meet the ends of justice. The punishment imposed under Section 376 IPC is set aside, being not in conformity with the provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. So far the default clause is concerned, i.e., fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, simple imprisonment for 1 month, the same is sustained. 26. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. 27. Send down the LCR to the Court below with a copy of this judgment and order immediately. 28. Also send a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of District Jail, Nalbari, for furnishing the same to the accused-appellant. This Court records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. SK Janungoe. Learned Amicus Curiae be paid an amount of Rs. 7,000/-, as honorarium. Appeal Partly Allowed.