JUDGMENT : A.C. RAO, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant – original accused under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Special (POCSO) Case No.2 of 2014 dated 1/1/2015, by which the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant herein - original accused for the offences punishable under section 377 of Indian Penal Code as well as under section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. However, the Sessions Judge, considering the evidence on record, did not award any separate punishment for the offence under section 377 of IPC but the learned Judge was of the opinion that if the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for eleven years for the offence punishable under section 4 of POCTO Act, the ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant herein – original accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of eleven years with fine of Rs.30,000/-, and in default of deposit of fine, the learned Judge ordered to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence under section 4 of POCSO Act. The learned Judge further ordered that out of the amount of fine of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.15,000/- be paid to the mother of the minor victim. The learned Sessions Judge has also been pleased to grant benefit of set off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell is as under:- The complainant – Mr.S.K. Pujara, Chair Person of Child Welfare Committee, Surendranagar recorded statement of the victim, who at the relevant time was aged 12 years. In the said statement, the minor victim has stated that the accused has committed the offence of of unnatural act twice with him in Ashramshala (school). On the basis of the said statement, the complainant – Chairperson ordered that the victim personally appeared before the Child Welfare Committee, Surendranagar on Friday, 14/2/2019. He had given statement that Laljibhai who is friend of the Manubhai - teacher of Ashram Shala run and managed by Scheduled Tribes has committed offence of unnatural act with him and has abused him physically. He had given statement that Laljibhai who is friend of the Manubhai - teacher of Ashram Shala run and managed by Scheduled Tribes has committed offence of unnatural act with him and has abused him physically. The Minor victim has also stated in his statement that he has pain in stomach and while urning and hence if required, medical reports be got prepared and all the informations be kept secrete and special caution be taken to see such information do not publish in print media, as per the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The Chairperson also ordered that after following the mandatory procedure, the report of facts be placed before the Child Welfare Committee within a period of three days. The said order was sent to the Child Welfare Officer, Chotila Police Station, Chotila. On the basis of the aforesaid, Mr.Haripara, Police Inspector of Chotila Police Station registered FIR being CR No.I-22 of 2014 for the offence under section 377 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” and under section 4 of POCSO Act. 2.1. After registration of the FIR, investigating officer carried out investigation. He got done medical examination of the victim, obtained certificate of the doctor who had examined the victim, arrested the accused, prepared panchnama of the place of offence, recorded statement of the witnesses etc. 2.2. On completion of the investigation, as there was sufficient evidence against the accused, the investigating officer filed Chargesheet against the accused under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the competent court and the case was registered as Special (POCSO) Case No.2 of 2014. 2.3. Thereafter, the Sessions Court framed Charge against the accused at Ex.8 and also recorded Plea of the accused under section 228(2) of the Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial. Therefore, the trial court conducted the trial in accordance with law. 2.4. The prosecution produced the oral as well as documentary evidence, more particularly, the prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses and produced in all 16 documents. 2.5. Thereafter, statement of the accused came to be recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it was the case of the accused that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the offence. 2.6. 2.5. Thereafter, statement of the accused came to be recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it was the case of the accused that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the offence. 2.6. After conclusion of the trial, the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant accused for the offence punishable under section 377 of IPC and under section 4 of POCSO Act, however, sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for 11 years with fine, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant herein – original accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal. Submissions of the appellant - accused :- 3. Mr.Jay Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein – original accused has made the following submissions:- (1) The trial court erred in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 377 of IPC and under section 4 of POCSO Act and erred in sentencing the appellant for eleven years. (2) The trial court failed to appreciate that the case against the appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no cogent, convincing, reliable and sufficient evidence to convict the appellant. The trial court has convicted the accused misinterpreting the evidence on record and without appreciating the evidence on record in its true spirit. The conviction and sentence is against the evidence on record, against the provision of law and against settled legal position. (3) The trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the medical evidence has not at all supported the case of the prosecution. Dr.Dipaliben Vinodray Joshi PW No.3 who has been examined at Ex.13, has treated the victim. The victim has given history before the said Doctor. From the said history also it is evident that the alleged incident had occurred before about one and half months. Thus, the victim was examined by the said witness Doctor after a period of one and half month. From the deposition of the said Doctor it is clear that there no external injury on the body and private part of the victim found by the Doctor. It is also clear that even no mark of blood or Symon found from the body, clothes or private part of the victim, by the said Doctor. From the deposition of the said Doctor it is clear that there no external injury on the body and private part of the victim found by the Doctor. It is also clear that even no mark of blood or Symon found from the body, clothes or private part of the victim, by the said Doctor. (4) The evidence of the witnesses, relying on which the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant are not eye witnesses. (5) The investigating agency has not complied with the provisions of POCSO Act. (6) The reasons recorded by the learned trial court while convicting the appellant are improper and perverse. (7) The trial court failed to appreciate that the panch witness Ex.10 of the panchnama of the place of offence is doubtful and even another panch witness Ex.12 has not supported the case of the prosecution and is declared hostile. (8) The panchas of panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused Ex.18 and Ex.20 have not supported the case of the prosecution and are declared hostile. (9) That the medical evidence and ocular evidence are not consistent with the case of the prosecution and therefore, the trial court erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant accused. (10) The trial court erred in relying on the oral evidence of PW Nos.30,31, 32 and 33. (11) The trial court failed to appreciate the fact that even otherwise, the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 377 of IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act are not made out or satisfied. (12) The learned trial court failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Making above submissions, leaned counsel for the appellant prayed to allow this Appeal by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and order to release the appellant forthwith. Contentions of the respondent - State :- 4. This Appeal is opposed by Ms.C.M. Shah, the learned APP appearing for the State. She has made the following submissions :- (1) The prosecution has successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, by leading cogent and convincing evidence. (2) The prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. (3) The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is on true appreciation of evidence and same is not perverse. She has made the following submissions :- (1) The prosecution has successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, by leading cogent and convincing evidence. (2) The prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. (3) The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is on true appreciation of evidence and same is not perverse. (4) No error has been committed by the trial court in convicting the appellant for the offence under section 377 of IPC and under section 4 of POCSO Act and sentencing the appellant accused. (5) There is no reason for the complainant and the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant. CONCLUSION :- 5. Heard Mr.Jay Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant accused and Ms.C.M. Shah, learned APP for the respondent State. Considered the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as well as the evidence on record. 6. On perusal of the evidence on record, the following facts emerge:- 6.1. PW No.1 – Panch witness Mansukhbhai Savjibhai, who is panch witness of panchnama of place of offence – Ex.11, is examined at Ex.10 has supported the case of the prosecution. 6.2. PW No.2 - panch witness – Dineshbhai Allauddin Khoja, who is another panch witness of panchnama of place of offence Ex.11, is examined at Ex.12. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and he is declared hostile. 6.3. PW No.3 - Doctor witness – Dr.Dipaliben Vinodray Joshi, who is examined at Ex.13 has stated in her deposition that she had examined the victim on 19/2/2014 while she was on her duty in Gandhi Hospital. She has stated that the victim has stated in the history before her that prior to one and half months, the appellant herein – Laljibhai had committed offence of unnatural conduct with her, at 10 O'clock at night in the hostel and at that time, Manubhai was sleeping. She has also given history that Laljibhai used to meet the principal Manubhai. She has also stated that thereafter after a period of 15 days at night, Laljibhai had committed the offence of unnatural act with her and at that time, nobody was present in the room. The said Doctor has examined the victim and according to her, there was no mark of injury on the body or private part of the victim. She has also stated that thereafter after a period of 15 days at night, Laljibhai had committed the offence of unnatural act with her and at that time, nobody was present in the room. The said Doctor has examined the victim and according to her, there was no mark of injury on the body or private part of the victim. The Doctor in the cross examination has admitted that the victim had not complained of any pain in stomach or while running. Certificates are produced at Ex. Nos.14 and 15. The report of the Police Sub Inspector, Chotila to the Medical officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital is produced at Ex.16. Forwarding letter of sending samples in sealed cover is produced at Ex.17 6.4. PW No.4 – panch witness – Chhabilbhai Ramjibhai Vaghela, who is examined at Ex.18 and PW No.5 – another panch witness – Hakabhai Somabhai Parmar, who is examined at Ex.20, are the panch witnesses of recovery of clothes of the accused – Ex.19. They have not supported the case of the prosecution and they are declared hostile. 6.5. PW No.5 – Dr.Menthlo Konyak Yongyong, who is examined at Ex.21 has stated in his deposition that he has examined the accused Laljibhai Kalabhai Algotar while he was on duty as Medical officer in CHC, Chotila on 21/2/2014. The said doctor had recorded the history of the accused and in the history, the accused had stated that he is innocent and has not committed the alleged offence, however, he is falsely implicated in the offence. Original Case papers of the victim is produced at Ex.22, letter for examination of the accused is produced at Ex.23. Forwarding letter sent by the hospital to the police is produced at Ex.24 and Certificate given by him is produced at Ex.25. 6.6. PW No.6 - Jitendrasinh Ranjitsinh Solanki, who is examined at Ex.26. He has deposed in his deposition that he is working as Superintendent in Children Home since last three years in Surendranagar and it is his duty to take care of the children. The said witness has not given any evidence against the accused. 6.7. PW No.7 – Maheboob Kadarbhai Malek is examined at Ex.27. The said witness was working as Assistant Gard in the Children Home, Surendranagar, since last four years. He had also no personal knowledge about the commission of the offence by the accused. 6.8. The said witness has not given any evidence against the accused. 6.7. PW No.7 – Maheboob Kadarbhai Malek is examined at Ex.27. The said witness was working as Assistant Gard in the Children Home, Surendranagar, since last four years. He had also no personal knowledge about the commission of the offence by the accused. 6.8. PW No.8 – Mansukhbhai Gandabhai Parmar, who is examined at Ex.28 has stated in his deposition that he is working as a teacher in Chotila Scheduled Caste Ashram School since 17/9/1998. He has deposed that the victim was admitted in the school in 1st standard and he studied upto 3rd standard and on 29/6/2013, guardian of the victim obtained school leaving certificate of the victim. However, thereafter he was again brought to the school by the Nani (grand-mother) of the victim. However, at that time, she had not brought the school leaving certificate but as the victim was ex-student of the school, he was again admitted in the school and it was informed to his grand-mother to submit the school leaving certificate of the victim. The said witness has further deposed that the victim studied for few days, however, the had left the school without informing anybody and thereafter, after sometime, mother of the victim named Meenaben had come to the school on 5/2/2014 and requested to keep her son – victim in the school. She was informed that school leaving certificate of the victim has not been submitted. After the grand-mother of the of the victim admitted the victim, the victim had left the school without informing anybody. The mother of the victim stated that her husband has expired, her financial condition is weak and she has three children and the victim is mischievous and she assured that she will submit the school leaving certificate and she requested to admit her son – victim in the school. Even the grand-mother of the victim had also assured that her grandson will not do any mischief. She also stated that if her son leaves the school, the school will not be responsible. Therefore, the victim was again admitted in the school and his mother was informed to submit the school leaving certificate immediately. The said witness has further stated that thereafter on 14/2/2014 the victim left the school under the guise that he is going for natural call and thereafter he has not returned back. Therefore, the victim was again admitted in the school and his mother was informed to submit the school leaving certificate immediately. The said witness has further stated that thereafter on 14/2/2014 the victim left the school under the guise that he is going for natural call and thereafter he has not returned back. The mother of the victim was tried to be contacted by the school on phone, but she could not be contacted. Hence, the grandmother of the victim was informed that the victim has left the school and has not returned back. The said witness has deposed that thereafter he came to know about the complaint in question. The said witness was cross-examined by defence and in his cross examination, he has stated that he has no knowledge about the statement given by the victim before the Welfare Committee. He admitted that the presence of the victim is not marked in the attendance register from 29/6/2013. He admitted that the victim was habitual to leave the school frequently. He admitted that mother of the victim had given assurance that the victim will not commit mischief and not leave the school and in case she leave the school, the school will not be responsible. 6.9. PW No.9 - Natvarbhai Dungarbhai Chavada, who is examined at Ex.29 has stated in his deposition that he is working as assistant teacher since 27/12/2004 and his principal is Mansukhbhai Gandabhai. He had stated that since the accused was visiting to the school for writing accounts, he knows the accused. He has deposed that he had read the statement given by the victim to the and same was explained to him by police. He has also given deposed in the same line as given by Mansukhbhai Gandabhai Parmar Ex.28. 6.10. PW No.10 - Meenaben Bhikhabhai Babariya is examined at Ex.30. She is mother of the victim. She has deposed that her husband has died in the year 2009, she has four children, two sons and two daughters. Elder daughter is Mital and thereafter the son - victim and thereafter daughter Arpita and thereafter Chandresh. She has deposed that victim was studying in the Ashramshala, Chotila since last three years. She has deposed that her son – victim had informed her that his sir had asked him to press his legs. Thereafter he put down his Pent and committed unnatural act with him. She has deposed that victim was studying in the Ashramshala, Chotila since last three years. She has deposed that her son – victim had informed her that his sir had asked him to press his legs. Thereafter he put down his Pent and committed unnatural act with him. She deposed that her son victim had given the name of Laljibhai. The custody of the victim was not handed over to her as she had no papers and after two days, she had submitted papers to the school and taken the custody of the victim. In the cross examination, she has admitted that her son – victim has studied from 1st to 3rd in the school and thereafter he had left the school and her school leaving certificate was also obtained from the school. Thereafter the victim had resided with his grand-mother (mother-in-law of the deponent) at village Makrani Sanosara she came to know when her son returned back from the village. She admitted that her mother Shantaben had again admitted the victim in the school and at that time she had meet the victim. She admitted that at that time, the victim had not disclosed reason for leaving the school. She has admitted that the school leaving certificate was with the grand-mother of the victim. She admitted that she had assured to submit school leaving certificate, however, she has not submitted the same. She has denied that she admitted the victim in the school stating that he is mischievous and is harassing her and she will submit his school leaving certificate. She denied that her son used to leave the school frequently. She denied that the victim is lier. She has further stated in her cross examination that the victim had informed her that he had informed about the incident to Rahul, Pravin and Pradip. He has further stated that the victim had talked about Kishor and his mother Hiralben and Hiralben used to stayed at night in the school and she has illicit relation with the Sir and he after consuming liquor, asked to dragged him in other room. However, she has stated that Kirhor or Hiralben are not known to her. She admitted that she has no personal knowledge about the incident. 6.11. PW No.11 – the victim, who at the time of recording of his deposition was aged 13 years, is examined at Ex.31. However, she has stated that Kirhor or Hiralben are not known to her. She admitted that she has no personal knowledge about the incident. 6.11. PW No.11 – the victim, who at the time of recording of his deposition was aged 13 years, is examined at Ex.31. He has stated in his deposition that he has studied in Scheduled Caste Ashramshala, Chotila upto 3rd standard and was residing in the hostel and his younger brother Chirag was also staying with him. He has deposed that the incident had happened before about seven months. Manubhai was the principal in the school and Natu Sir and Manu Sir both were teachers. He does not know the exact date of the incident. He has deposed that Laljibhai had called him to press his legs and and asked him to put down his Pent and thereafter, asked me to sleep with him. Thereafter he had committed unnatural offence with him. He has deposed that such act was done once on that day. After twenty days the offence was committed with him in the same manner. The act was lasted for twenty minutes. He has further deposed that for the first time, he had run away by opening door and thereafter I asked that he has to go for urinal (making water) and had gone upside and had slept. He has further deposed that after the incident, he had gone from Chotila to Rajkot Kathiyavadi Bal ashram and there I asked the phone number of Bhaveshbhai. He had called Bhaveshbhai and thereafter Bhaveshbhai had come there and he had informed Bhaveshbhai about the incident. He has further stated that he was kept in Juvenile Home, Surendranagar for 10 days where his complaint was recorded by one lady. One man had also asked him about the incident and thereafter phone number of his mother was obtained and she was called. He had given complaint to the Chotila Police Station. He has further stated that his statement was also recorded by one lady. He identified his statement and his signature on the statement given by him. He has stated that after recording his statement and after two months from the date of incident, he was taken to the hospital by police. He has stated that he has not informed about the incident to anybody for a period of two months, as he was feared. He has stated that after recording his statement and after two months from the date of incident, he was taken to the hospital by police. He has stated that he has not informed about the incident to anybody for a period of two months, as he was feared. He identified the accused Laljibhai in the open Court. The said victim was cross examined by the defence, however, nothing fruitful has come out so far as the alleged offences of unnatural act by the accused is concerned. Various questions were asked to the victim, however, no specific question about the alleged offence by the accused to the victim was asked in the cross examination. Nothing fruitful has come on record which can rescue the accused. Specific question was asked in the cross examination and the victim has denied that he is telling lie in the examination in chief and he has reiterated that what is stated by him in the examination in chief and denied that he stasted facts in examination in chief falsely. 6.12. PW No.12 – Shantaben Govindbhai Rathod is examined at Ex.32. However, the said witness has no personal knowledge about the incident. 6.13. PW No.13 – complainant – Kundanben Sumankumar Punjara, Chairperson of Children Welfare Committee, Surendranagar, who is examined at Ex.33 has stated in her deposition that she is Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee. She has deposed that the victim had run away from the Ashramshala, Chotila and thereafter he was found and hence his custody was handed over to the Child Welfare Committee, Rajkot having jurisdiction. She has stated in his deposition that the victim has stated her that Manubhai and his friend Laljibhai had called the victim in his room to press their legs. Manubhai was reactor and Laljibhai was his friend who asked the victim to put down his Pent. She has further deposed that the victim has informed him that Laljibhai was staying in the room of Manubhai at night and Laljibhai called the victim in his room and asked him to put down his clothes. Two-three friends of the victim also knows the said fact. She has specifically stated that the victim had informed her that Laljibhai had committed unnatural offence with him twice. She has stated that the victim has given the aforesaid statement before her and same was written by the Superintendent. Two-three friends of the victim also knows the said fact. She has specifically stated that the victim had informed her that Laljibhai had committed unnatural offence with him twice. She has stated that the victim has given the aforesaid statement before her and same was written by the Superintendent. She has further deposed that since the statement of the victim disclosed the offence of unnatural act, as a Chairperson of the Children Welfare she informed the Chotila Police Stastion in writing about the offence on 17/2/2014. Original letter is produced at Ex.34. She has identified the statement with her signature and signature of the victim and same is produced at Ex.35. The said witness has been cross examined by defence. However, nothing useful to the accused has derived from the cross examination. 6.14. PW No.14 Police Inspector - Ambalal Laljibhai - is examined at Ex.39. He is the investigating officer, who has investigated the offence, arrested the accused and filed the chargesheet. The said witness was also cross examined, however, nothing fruitful has come on record which would be helpful to the accused. 7. Heard Mr.Jay Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant accused and Ms.C.M. Shah, learned APP for the respondent State at length. Perused and considered the evidence on record and impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 7.1. Considering the overall evidence on record, it is clear that the victim has made specific allegations against the accused. Mother of the victim has also supported the case of the prosecution. The victim had informed the mother of the victim about the offences and she has also supported the case of the prosecution. It is an undisputed fact and has come on record that the accused was going to write account in the school where the victim was studying and lodging where the accused has committed the alleged offence. It is also an undisputed fact and it has also come on record that there was good relation between the accused Laljibhai and principal of the Ashramshala Mansukhbhai alias Manubhai. There was no enmity of the accused with the victim or his family. The question of false implication of the accused by the victim and complainant does not arise. Even the Chairperson before whom the victim had given his statement has also supported the case of the prosecution. There was no enmity of the accused with the victim or his family. The question of false implication of the accused by the victim and complainant does not arise. Even the Chairperson before whom the victim had given his statement has also supported the case of the prosecution. The defence has failed to bring on record any evidence that there was any enmity and due to that enmity, the victim has lodged false complaint against the accused. Considering the evidence on record, it cannot be presumed that the allegations made by the victim are false, fabricated or concocted. Even it is the case o the prosecution that the accused was used to go to the Ashramshala for writing accounts for once or twice in fortnight and that is the case of the prosecution. Under the circumstances, the evidence of Bhaveshbhai or Paruldidi (Child Line), Rajkot are not important. The deposition of the victim is natural. There is consistency in the evidence of the victim and the Chairperson so far as the alleged offence by the accused with the victim is concerned. The victim has specifically stated that the accused had twice committed the offence of unnatural act with the victim. The victim has identified the victim. The evidence of the victim is corroborated by the evidence of the Chairperson and there is no reason not to believe or discard the evidence of the victim as well as Chairperson. There was no reason for the victim and his family or the Chairperson to falsely implicate the accused in the offence. Merely because the complaint is lodged belatedly and hence the victim was examined belatedly and therefore, in the medical evidence no injury is found and no pain in stomach or while urning is complained of by the victim, it cannot be said that the accused has not committed any offence. No medical evidence against the accused has come on record, because the FIR was lodged belatedly and thereafter victim was examined. It is true that there is no corroborative medical evidence, however, the corroboration is not required, when there are specific evidence against the accused. Medical evidence is required to be considered, if there is no other evidence. In the present case, there are sufficient evidence on record against the accused. It is true that there is no corroborative medical evidence, however, the corroboration is not required, when there are specific evidence against the accused. Medical evidence is required to be considered, if there is no other evidence. In the present case, there are sufficient evidence on record against the accused. Accused cannot be convicted merely on the basis of medical evidence and when there is no ocular evidence of any prosecution witness. In the present case, voluminous evidence against the accused. When there are sufficient oral evidence, accused is not entitled to benefit of doubt merely because there is no medical evidence to support the case of the prosecution. 7.2. The learned learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently contended that that the victim had stated that he had talked about the incident to Kishor and his mother Hiraben but the investigating officer has not examined Kishor. It is also contended that the victim has stated that Hiraben used to stay at night and she has illicit relation with Sir. The victim has stated that after consuming liquor, the Sir sued to dragged her in other room. However, Hiraben has denied such facts. It is submitted that therefore, the victim is not reliable and relying on the evidence of his evidence, appellant cannot be convicted. We do not agree with the aforesaid submissions made by the appellant. In our view, it is a duty of the Court to find out the truth from the evidence, even if the witness has lied to some extent. In this regard, we would like to refer the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana: (2008) 11 SCC 425 wherein, the Apex Court extracted the principles propounded in the case of Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar: (2002) 6 SCC 81 , which read as under: - "13. Coming to the applicability of the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of large number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. However, where large number of other persons are accused, the court has to carefully screen the evidence: 51. ... It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. However, where large number of other persons are accused, the court has to carefully screen the evidence: 51. ... It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where the chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) has not received general acceptance in different jurisdiction nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called a mandatory rule of evidence . (See Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. [ AIR 1957 SC 366 ]). Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1956 SC 460 ]). The doctrine is a dangerous one, specially in India, for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because the witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab v. State of M.P.[ (1972) 3 SCC 751 ] and Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1965 SC 277 ]). An attempt has to be made to in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate the truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P. [ AIR 1954 SC 15 ] and Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab[ (1975) 4 SCC 511 ]). As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki [ (1981) 2 SCC 752 ] normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and these are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorised. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party s case, material discrepancies do so." 7.3. On minute scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is clear that the accused has not taken care to rebut the presumption under the POCSO Act. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorised. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party s case, material discrepancies do so." 7.3. On minute scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is clear that the accused has not taken care to rebut the presumption under the POCSO Act. It would be fruitful to refer to section 29 of the POCSO Act, which reads thus :- “29. Presumption as to certain offences.—Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved.” 7.4. Thus, the presumption is that the accused has committed the offence as charged unless proved contrarily. At the same time, we may look into the provisions of Section 30 of the POCSO Act which affords the Appellant the opportunity of disproving that he had such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in the Prosecution. The Appellant has failed to take advantage of this provision of Law and no evidence whatsoever has been led in his defence. 7.5. Once the foundation of the prosecution case is laid by leading legally admissible evidence, it becomes incumbent on the accused to establish from the evidence on record that he has not committed the offence or to show from the circumstances of a particular case that a man of ordinary prudence would most probably draw an inference of innocence in his favour. The accused may achieve such an end by leading defence evidence or by discrediting prosecution witnesses through effective cross-examination or by exposing the patent absurdities or inherent infirmities in their version by an analysis of the special features of the case. However, the aforesaid statutory presumption cannot be read to mean that the prosecution version is to be treated as gospel truth in every case. However, the aforesaid statutory presumption cannot be read to mean that the prosecution version is to be treated as gospel truth in every case. The presumption does not take away the essential duty of the Court to analyze the evidence on record in the light of the special features of a particular case, e.g. patent absurdities or inherent infirmities in the prosecution version or existence of entrenched enmity between the accused and the victim giving rise to an irresistible inference of falsehood in the prosecution case while determining whether the accused has discharged his onus and established his innocence in the given facts of a case. 7.6. There can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant. Section 29 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of deterrent effect of the Act. 7.7. When there had been a prosecution for offence punishable under Section 4, the Special Court concerned, shall presume that such person has committed the said offence unless the contrary is proved. Therefore, once a charge has been laid against the person under the aforesaid provisions of the POCSO Act, the actual presumption shall be against the accused unless the accused proved the contrary. Therefore, the burden of proving the contrary against the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act shall lie only on the shoulder of the accused. Unless he rebuts the same by disproving such presumption, the statutory presumption shall always be against such accused. 7.8. Considering the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence under section 377 of IPC and u/s 4 of POCSO Act. The impugned judgment and order of conviction is well reasoned and the trial court has considered and dealt with all the contentions raised by the defence. We are in agreement with the view taken by the trial court. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is just, legal and on appreciation of evidence on record and we find no reason to interfere with the same. 7.9. Even otherwise, the trial court though held the accused guilty, has not imposed maximum punishment of life imprisonment and thereby already shown leniency towards the accused, may be considering the age of the accused. 7.9. Even otherwise, the trial court though held the accused guilty, has not imposed maximum punishment of life imprisonment and thereby already shown leniency towards the accused, may be considering the age of the accused. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Present appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.