JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 17.07.2015 passed by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge, at Dharwad in Spl. S.C. No.12/2014 whereby, the appellant-sole accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act) and is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused aged about 64 years, was working in Mahalaxmi Engineering Works situated at Gokul Road, Hubballi. The victim was known to the accused. She was addressing the accused as “uncle”. At the relevant time she was studying in 9th standard and every day she used to board the bus near a “Bunny Tree” situated near Mahalaxmi Engineering Works. On 03.02.2014 as usual the victim was on her way to school at about 9:30 a.m.. At that time, the accused is stated to have took her inside the workshop. He untied her chudidar and inserted his finger into the vagina of the victim. At that time, the brother of the victim (PW7) happened to reach the workshop. On seeing the accused misbehaving with the victim, PW7 thrashed the accused. Victim proceeded to her school. PW7 narrated the incident to his mother of the victim. The victim was brought back from the school. A complaint was lodged by the mother before the Gokul Road Police station. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.4/2014 came to be registered against the accused. The victim was subjected to medical examination. On completing the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. At trial, the accused denied the charge. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses including the victim and the complainant and produced in evidence 23 documents, marked as Ex.P1 to P23 and the material objects at M.Os.1 to 7. In the course of the cross-examination of PW3, the endorsement given by the police came to be marked as Ex.D1. In the course of the cross-examination of PW3, the endorsement given by the police came to be marked as Ex.D1. In his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances spoken to by the prosecution witnesses and took up a specific plea that on 03.02.2014 when he demanded the father and brothers of the victim to pay Rs.15,000/- which was due to him in respect of the welding work, the father and the brothers of the victim assaulted him and in that regard he had been to police station to lodge a complaint. He further took up a plea that with a view to avoid payment of this amount at the instance of the father and brothers of the victim, a false case has been registered against him. 4. On considering the material on record, the Trial Court was of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and imposed the sentence as above. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned HCGP. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Trial Court has committed serious error in convicting the appellant. The prosecution has filed to produce reliable evidence in proof of the charge leveled against the accused. The genesis of the incident is suppressed. The victim herself has wavered during her examination before the Court. Her demeanor as recorded by the Trial Court indicates that she was reluctant to give her evidence. She has admitted in the cross-examination that as per the say of her mother and brother she has deposed in the manner stated in her chief examination. Her evidence therefore is tainted. Hence, no credence could have been given to the statement of the victim. 7. Further he contends that according to the prosecution, every day the younger brother of the victim was accompanying her to the school. The said younger brother is not examined before the Court. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution does not corroborate the testimony of the victim. Though the charge has been framed alleging penetrative sexual assault, the evidence of the medical officer (PW5) completely rules out the possibility of penetrative sexual assault. The said younger brother is not examined before the Court. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution does not corroborate the testimony of the victim. Though the charge has been framed alleging penetrative sexual assault, the evidence of the medical officer (PW5) completely rules out the possibility of penetrative sexual assault. The Panch Witness examined by the prosecution (PW6) has admitted that the signatures were subscribed on the panchanamas (Ex.P12 and Ex.P13) in the police station. As a result, there is no worthwhile evidence in proof of the ingredients of the offence charged against the accused. On the other hand, the circumstances brought out in the evidence of the prosecution indicate that there was animosity between the family of the victim and the accused. Father of the victim owed Rs. 15,000/to the accused in respect of welding work undertaken by him. Hence, with a view to avoid payment of the said money, the victim has been set up by the prosecution by foisting a false case against the appellant. Further, the learned counsel submits that, even for any reason, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is believed, the said evidence would at the most would make out the ingredients of the offence of sexual harassment punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and not under Section 4 of the Act as held by the Trial Court. Hence, he pleads that, the accused be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 8. Defending the impugned Judgment, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the case of the prosecution does not suffer from any inconsistency or contradictions as sought to be made out by the defence. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the incident had taken place in the workshop where the accused was working as a welder. The victim has unequivocally stated before the Court that she was acquainted with the accused and even earlier to the incident, the accused had committed sexual assault on her more than 8 – 10 times’. This evidence has remained un-contraverted. The victim has unequivocally stated before the Court that she was acquainted with the accused and even earlier to the incident, the accused had committed sexual assault on her more than 8 – 10 times’. This evidence has remained un-contraverted. Merely suggesting to the victim that she has been tutored does not weaken the credibility of her testimony especially in view of the corroborating evidence produced by the prosecution by examining the brother of the victim who reached the spot at the nick of the moment and the mother of the victim who has stated about the circumstances leading to the lodging of the complaint. All these circumstances are cogently proved. There was absolutely no reason for the victim and her parents to falsely implicate the accused. The incident is proved to have taken place as narrated by the victim. No contradictions or inconsistencies are brought out either in the evidence of the child or in the evidence of the other material witnesses. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 9. I have considered the above submissions and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. The crucial evidence produced by the prosecution is the evidence of the victim namely PW1. She was aged 15 years as on the date of her examination before the Court. She has deposed that she was acquainted with the accused and she used to address him as ‘mama’ namely Uncle. Every day, she used to board the bus to go to her school at ‘Bunny Tree’, situated near the Mahalaxmi Engineering Works. Since about one month prior to the incident, the accused used to offer her Rs. 2/- or Rs. 5/- and used to take her to the workshop and misbehave with her. She has specifically stated that during these incidents, the accused used to insert his finger in her private parts. With regard to the incident in question, she has narrated that on 03.02.2014, as usual when she was waiting for the bus, the accused gave her Rs. 5/and took her inside the workshop, untied her chudidar and started inserting his finger in her vagina and at that time her brother PW7 came to the spot and on seeing the incident, her brother assaulted the accused. 5/and took her inside the workshop, untied her chudidar and started inserting his finger in her vagina and at that time her brother PW7 came to the spot and on seeing the incident, her brother assaulted the accused. She has further stated that she proceeded to the school, but, she was brought back from the school by her mother and thereafter a complaint was lodged as per her say. Further, she has stated that her statement was also recorded before the Magistrate, few days after the incident. 10. The testimony of PW1 is strongly assailed by the learned counsel for the accused contending that in the cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that she has given her evidence as per the say of her mother and brothers and therefore, her evidence is tainted and cannot be given any credence. I have gone through the evidence of PW1. No doubt she has answered the suggestion put to her in the affirmative, but this answer, in my view, does not lead to the inference that she is either a tutored witness or that she has repeated the version told to her by her mother and brother as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. The relevant suggestion put to PW1 in the course of her cross-examination reads as under : “It is true to suggest that my mother and brother have told me to depose as stated in the statement given before the police” 11. A reading of this answer in the context of the over all evidence of PW1 conveys the meaning that she was asked to stick to her previous statement. It is not the contention of the learned counsel that the previous statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C was the outcome of tutoring by her mother and brother. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the answer given by PW1 to the above suggestion would lead to the inference that the evidence given by her in the chief-examination was tutored by her mother and brother as contended by the defence. On the other hand, the above portion of the evidence indicates that she has deposed in line with the previous statement given before the police. On the other hand, the above portion of the evidence indicates that she has deposed in line with the previous statement given before the police. The accused has not brought out any contradiction or inconsistencies in the evidence given before the Court and the previous statement recorded under Section 161 or under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the answer elicited from PW1 in my view, does not militate against the case of the prosecution nor does it weaken the credibility of the testimony of PW1. 12. Even otherwise, it is a cardinal rule of appreciation of evidence that evidence has to be read as whole and not in isolation. In appreciating the evidence of PW1, it is relevant to note that even though PW1 is subjected to lengthy and grueling cross-examination, she has stood by the core case of the prosecution. She has reiterated even in the cross-examination that on the date of the incident as well as on the previous dates about a month earlier thereto, the accused was misbehaving with her and was offering money and taking her to the workshop. This version of PW1 has not been discredited in the cross-examination. The cash found in her possession on the date of the incident was seized by the police. It is proved in evidence that the said money was given to her by the accused on the date of the incident in the workshop. This evidence of PW1 lends further corroboration to her testimony that the accused was luring her with the offer of Rs.2/-or Rs.5/-and used to take her to the workshop and commit sexual assault on her. 13. The statement of PW1 gets further corroboration in the complaint lodged on the very date of the incident as per Ex.P7. In proof of this fact, the testimony of PW2, the mother of the victim goes to show that on getting the information from her son (PW7) she rushed to the school of the victim and ascertained the truth from the victim and immediately lodged the complaint as per Ex.P7. The promptitude in which the complaint is lodged implicating the accused at the earliest instance without any loss of time narrating the sequence of events which are in conformity with the oral testimony of PW1 lends further assurance and credibility to the version of PW1 regarding the occurrence. 14. The promptitude in which the complaint is lodged implicating the accused at the earliest instance without any loss of time narrating the sequence of events which are in conformity with the oral testimony of PW1 lends further assurance and credibility to the version of PW1 regarding the occurrence. 14. In appreciating the evidence of PW1, it is also relevant to refer to the provisions of the POCSO Act 2012, which provides for special procedure for recording the evidence of the victim of a sexual offence. Section 36 of the Act reads as under: “36. Child not to see accused at the time of testifying: (1) The Special Court shall ensure that the child is not exposed in any way to the accused at the time of recording of the evidence, while at the same time ensuring that the accused is in a position to hear the statement of the child and communicate with his advocate. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Special Court may record the statement of a child through video conferencing or by utilizing single visibility mirrors or curtains or any other device.” In view of the above provisions, the Trial Court was required to ensure that the PW1 was not exposed in any way to the accused at the time of giving her evidence. Section 37 of the Act mandates that ; “37. Trials to be conducted in camera – The Special Court shall try cases in camera and in the presence of the parents of the child or any other person in whom the child has trust or confidence: Provided that where the Special Court is of the opinion that the child needs to be examined at a place other than the court, it shall proceed to issue a commission in accordance with the provisions of section 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)” Further, and more importantly, Section 33(6) lays down that ; “The Special Court shall not permit aggressive questioning or character assassination of the child and ensure that dignity of the child is maintained at all times during the trial.” The above salutary provisions are required to be followed by the Trial Court in order to effectuate the purpose for which the said provisions are enacted. But unfortunately, the records of the case indicate that the special Court has conveniently given a go bye to these procedural requirements while conducting the trial. The victim is seen to have been left at the mercy of the accused to face aggressive cross-examination. The tenor of the cross-examination and the manner of the suggestions put to PW1 goes to show that she was treated like an adult in the witness box. Undeniably, PW1 was a child not conversant with the legal procedures. Under the said circumstance the questions and the suggestions posed to PW1 ought to have been directed through the Court. The deposition sheet indicates that when PW1 turned emotional and was unable to narrate the incident facing the accused and the accused was sent out, PW1 has proceeded to narrate the incident without any fear or apprehension. The manner in which PW1 has narrated the incident and her demeanor noted by the Trial Judge inspires further confidence to hold that she was traumatized by the incident and therefore, she broke down while giving her evidence in the open Court. All these circumstances in my view would only fortify the case of the prosecution rather than leading to suspect the testimony of PW1 as contended by the learned defence counsel. 15. Though a strong exception is taken by the learned counsel for the defence, contending that the victim kept mum when a suggestion was put to her denying the incident yet, having regard to facts discussed above, the silence of the victim, in my view cannot be taken as a factor affecting the veracity of her evidence, especially in view of the consistent denial of the earlier suggestions made by her during the course of the cross-examination. PW1 having consistently denied the very same suggestions, it was not proper on the part of the counsel to berate the witness by making repeated suggestions on the same point. Therefore, even on this score, the evidence of PW1 cannot be doubted or viewed with the suspicion. 16. The testimony of PW7, the brother of the victim also goes in support of the evidence of PW1 with regard to the incident on material particulars. The fact that PW7 reached the spot at the nick of the moment has remained un-contraverted in the cross-examination. 16. The testimony of PW7, the brother of the victim also goes in support of the evidence of PW1 with regard to the incident on material particulars. The fact that PW7 reached the spot at the nick of the moment has remained un-contraverted in the cross-examination. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence of PW1 and PW7 to suggest that they had any motive to falsely implicate the accused. Undisputedly, the accused was aged 64 years. The fact that the accused was knowing the victim and that she was addressing him as ‘Mama’ has also not been disputed. The very defence set up by the accused indicate that they were knowing each other and they were acquainted with each other. The accused has not been able to substantiate the defence set up by him with any cogent evidence. Even otherwise, it cannot be believed that the father and brothers of the accused would get the welding work done from the accused, who was merely an employee in the workshop. PW3 was the owner of the workshop. Though an attempt has been made to show that the complaint was lodged by him alleging assault by the brothers and the father of the victim, the accused has not produced any document to show that such a complaint was in fact lodged by him. Ex.D1 marked through PW1 does not lead to the conclusion that with regard to the alleged transaction relating the outstanding of Rs. 15,000/-, the incident narrated therein has taken place. 17. In the absence of any evidence in proof of false implication, I do not find any justifiable reason to doubt or disbelieve the evidence of PW1. In my view, the evidence of PW1 alone is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. The facts proved through her squarely attract the ingredients of Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Though it is contended that the medical evidence does not corroborate the testimony of the PW1 in as much as the doctor has stated that he did not find any physical injury on the private part of the victim and her hymen was found intact, but in considering this contention, it is necessary to note that the specific case of the prosecution is that the accused inserted finger in the vagina of the victim. It is not the case of the prosecution that the entire length of the finger was inserted or any other object was inserted into her private part leading to the rupture of the hymen. Clause (b) of Section 3 of the Act provides that insertion of any object or part of the body not being the penis into the vagina, the urethra or the anus of the child to any extent makes it punishable as an offence under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, even the medical evidence does not help the accused to support his contention that the victim was not subjected to any penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 3 of the POCSO Act. 18. The Trial Court has considered all these facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective. The Trial Court has also adverted to the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act. Though the learned counsel for the defence has contended that the facts proved by the prosecution would make out at the most a case of sexual harassment yet, having regard to the nature of the evidence given by the victim I am unable to accept the said submission. PW1 has consistently stated in her evidence that the accused not only harassed her, but even committed the acts which squarely fall within the meaning of Section 3 of the POCSO Act. 19. On re-appreciating the entire material on record, I am of the view that the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on legal evidence. I do not find any perversity either in the findings recorded by the Trial Court or in the appreciation of evidence. The defence has not been able to make out any grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment. The Trial court has imposed the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. As a result, the appeal fails. Hence, the following ; ORDER. The appeal is dismissed. The impugned Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 in Spl. S.C.No.12/2014 is confirmed.