JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, C. J. - Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, learned counsel stated in the morning at 10. 30 A. M. that he is no longer lawyer for the appellant. Therefore Mr. S. P. Singh Rajawat who was present in the court had been appointed as an Amicus Curiae in the morning at 10. 30. The matter is at Sr. No. 44. It has reached for hearing at 12. 00. Learned Amicus Curiae states that he is ready for the matter. Arguments have been heard. 2. Vide impugned decision dated 23/03/2015, the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under clause (m) of Section 9 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and in view of Section 10 thereof which envisages a minimum sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay fine in sum of 5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another 6 months. 3. Criminal law was set into motion when FIR Ex. P. 16 was recorded on 12/02/2014 by Kailash Bairwa S/o Chiranjilal Bairwa at PS Malarna Dungar, Sawai Madhopur. The statement made by Kailash Bairwa was that at about 10-11 a. m. his daughter named (X) aged 7 years proceeded towards the stream with a buffalo. After about an hour, his daughter returned in a nude condition and informed his wife that appellant accosted her near the stream. Stripped her and lay top of her and said that since his wife was not there he would have sex with her. 4. The daughter of the informant was subjected to bony age test and as per report Ex. P. 5 her age was between 10-12 years. The medical examination report Ex. P. 3 does not suggest any penetration. 5. It all therefore turns on the statement of the prosecutrix for the reason, as noted hereinabove the father of the prosecutrix informed the police that the prosecutrix returned home in a nude condition and told her mother as to what had happened. 6. Appearing as PW1 the prosecutrix, who stated her age to be 8-9 years, was put the preliminary questions by the court to ascertain whether she was capable of understanding the questions and answer them. She did so. 7. 6. Appearing as PW1 the prosecutrix, who stated her age to be 8-9 years, was put the preliminary questions by the court to ascertain whether she was capable of understanding the questions and answer them. She did so. 7. Pertaining to the incident in question she stated that at about 10-11 a. m. she took a buffalo for grazing. As she was nearing the Banas nadi the appellant accosted her. He offered her 'gutkha'. She refused. The appellant pulled her to the grass nearby and removed her clothes and also his. He said that he would have sex with her as his wife was not there. He sat on her chest. She hit him with a stick which she was having and ran away. On reaching home she informed her mother as to what had happened. 8. The statement is cryptic. It had to be. The witness was a young girl. 9. I have perused the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, and learned Amicus Curiae is unable to point out anything which suggests that the prosecutrix could be motivated. Unfortunately, the mother of the prosecutrix to whom she had reported in the house in a nude condition has not been examined. 10. Relevant would it be to highlight that immediately after the incident which took place on 12/02/2014 the prosecutrix was produced before the A. C. J. M. Sawai Madhopur. Her statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. Ex. P. 4 was recorded. In the said statement, she disclosed the facts which she deposed in the court. 11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.