JUDGMENT Shivakant Prasad, J. - This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2015 and 16.12.2015 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court-cumSpecial Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Barasat, North 24 Parganas and Sessions Trial No. 05(03)2014 (Special Case No.03 of 2014) convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The prosecution case leading to this appeal in brief is that on 27.09.2013 when victim girl was returning from the toilet, Lal Babu Shaw son of Ghanashyam Shaw caught her forcefully and took her to a godown and raped her. According to the written complaint when she tried to oppose him she was beaten up and she received scratch marks on her body. It is alleged that a month ago, the accused had tried to rape her but she managed to escape. On the written complaint of the victim, Belgharia PS Case No.419 dated 27.09.2013 under Section 8 was registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 4/6/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused-appellant was submitted. Thereafter, trial started with framing of charges under Section 376(2)(j)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 to which the appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses to bring home charges against the appellant. P.W. 1, 2 and 7 are the victim girl, mother of the victim and elder sister of the victim respectively. P.W. 3, 4 and 6 are the neighbours. P.W. 8 is a witness of seizure list. P.W. 9, P.W. 10 and 12 are the Doctors who examined the victim child. P.W. 13 is the Doctor who examined the accused to test his potency. P.W. 11 is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC. P.W. 14 and 15 are the Sub-Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer. The prosecution also adduced in evidence some documents being Exhibits 1 to 16 before the trial Court to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant. 3. P.W. 11 is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC. P.W. 14 and 15 are the Sub-Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer. The prosecution also adduced in evidence some documents being Exhibits 1 to 16 before the trial Court to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant. 3. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which he inclined to adduce defence evidence and examined one witness, D.W. 1, Jayanta Bain, Staff of Registry Office who proved the certified copy of the deed, Exhibit C as the accused-appellant has taken the alibi that he was at the A.D.S.R., Cossipore, Dum Dum at the material point of time for execution and registration of the deed. Two photographs of the place near place of occurrence marked as material Exhibit-A and B to explain the place of occurrence. 4. After hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and after giving an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment to a term of three years for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment to a term of seven years for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months with further direction that the fine realized be paid to the victim child and also directed that pre-trial detention undergone by the convict would be set off from the substantive period of sentence as per the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned Judge, has illegally found the appellant guilty without proper appreciation of evidence on record. It is submitted that the P.W.1 victim in her First Information Report and her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code made departure and are not in general agreement, therefore, the first information report not being corroborated by its maker. Yet, the learned Judge illegally arrived at a finding of guilt against the appellant on surmises and conjectures. 6. Yet, the learned Judge illegally arrived at a finding of guilt against the appellant on surmises and conjectures. 6. It is contended that the victim girl was 18 years of age at the alleged date of occurrence. So the offence under POCSO Act is not attracted. The place of occurrence has not been proved in the trial. The learned Judge ought to have discarded the versions of P.W. 6 and 7 as their evidence fall under the category of hearsay evidence. It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses suffers from gross contradictions and embellished statement rendering them unreliable. Lastly, it is submitted that the appellant while being examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code took alibi that he was not at the place of occurrence at the alleged time and the date as he was all along present in the Registry Office at the ADSR, Cossipore and his alibi has been proved by evidence of D.W. upper division clerk of Registry Office. He produced the Registry Volume and the certified copy of the deed. It is submitted that a false case has been foisted against the appellant due to inimical relationship with the complainant and the accused appellant. Admittedly, the appellant has a shop room near the place of occurrence and the complaint party used to spread their cloths in front of the door of the shop room. For that, there was a quarrel between them. It is contended that the learned Trial Judge has not mentioned the specific time in the charge form as framed under Section 376(2) Clause (j) and (n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as the charges with four heads would go to show that there is no mention of the time of occurrence. The occurrence alleged is on 27.09.2013 at 1 p.m. when the victim girl allegedly went to toilet near her house and while returning the appellant caught hold of her and took her to a godown which belongs to a person named, Md. Muslim and when she tried to shout the appellant put his hand forcibly on her mouth and then he raped her and also beaten her and inflicted scratch mark on her body. 7. Mr. Muslim and when she tried to shout the appellant put his hand forcibly on her mouth and then he raped her and also beaten her and inflicted scratch mark on her body. 7. Mr. Debasis Kar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the F.I.R. does not find corroboration while the maker of the F.I.R., P.W. 1 who has otherwise stated on oath during examination that when she was going to relief herself to the Chhai maidan toilet of the jute mill the shop keeper held and dragged her to a room in the line quarter and thus the place of occurrence defers on evidence of victim girl. The place of occurrence, time of occurrence are not mentioned in the charge form, inimical relationship between the parties, major contradictions which appears in the evidence of victim as well as other witnesses of the prosecution and the alibi taken by the appellant create a doubt in the prosecution case entitling the appellant an order of acquittal. P.W. 1 has deposed in cross-examination that she was a student of Sri Babaji Sitaram School whereas the mother of the victim girl said that her daughter had no schooling. Admittedly, the victim girl has five sisters and one brother but none of them have been examined to corroborate the evidence of the victim girl. It is also contended that the I.O. should have taken steps for collection of certificate from the said school to ascertain her age. It is submitted that the place of occurrence has not been proved as Md. Muslim has not been examined to ascertain as to whether he has any quarter or any room at the place of occurrence. It is further pointed out that at the time of alleged occurrence the victim was putting on a white kamij and brown coloured salwar along with dupatta and her kamiz were stained with blood and were not washed, but, there is no F.S.L. report to prove presence of sperm or stain in the seized wearing apparel of the victim girl. Thus, it is pointed out that there are major contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses which are not in general term and considering the inimical relationship of the parties and alibi, the appellant should be acquitted of the charges. 8. Mr. Thus, it is pointed out that there are major contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses which are not in general term and considering the inimical relationship of the parties and alibi, the appellant should be acquitted of the charges. 8. Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the State draws my attention to the provisions of Section 215 and Section 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code to argue that finding in the judgment passed by the trial Court cannot be considered invalid merely on the ground of any such error, omission or irregularity in the charge as the contents of the charge was read over and explained to the accused after framing of charge and the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and then only trial started in which the accused-appellant has participated. So, no prejudice has been occasioned. 9. In conjoint reading of Section 464 and Section 215, it is concluded that no error in stating the particulars of time and place of occurrence can be ground of appeal to challenge the FIR impugned as the accused-appellant was, in fact not mislead by such error or omission. 10. In regard to the contradiction raised in respect of the place of occurrence there is no suggestion put to the witnesses that Md. Muslim was not residing in the said quarter No.37/20 old line and none examination of Md. Muslim is also not fatal in the given case as the quality of the evidence is to be taken into consideration and not the quantity. 11. It is well-settled law in appreciation of evidence of witnesses that it is not the number of witnesses, but the quality of their evidence which is important. It is a time honoured principle that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy. Therefore, the ocular testimony of the victim alone can be taken into consideration to base conviction in a case like this if the victim statement is convincing to the judicial mind. It is also the principles of law as a general rule, a Court may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible evidence outways the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character. 12. It is also the principles of law as a general rule, a Court may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible evidence outways the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character. 12. The victim was sent to the Doctor on the day the information was reported and was examined by the Doctor and medical evidence supports the victim versions. Dr. Sarodindu Das, P.W. 10 examined the victim girl aged about 16 years on 27.09.2013 as produced by Belghoria Police Station through A.S.I. identified by Maya Saha in connection with Belgharia P.S. Case No.419/13. On examination the Doctor found scratch over right side of the face on the outer canthus of eye, left side for internal examination he referred her to Gynecologist which is evident from the injury report Exhibit-8 with the L.T.I. of mother of the victim girl Exhibit 8/1. Doctor has also proved the report in respect of the accused bearing the signature of the accused as Exhibit 9/1. Dr. Sunanda Ghosh, P.W. 9 then examined the victim girl on the same day and found nail scratch over the face and tear in the hymen and the tear in the hymen was repaired and prescribed medicine as per her report Exhibit-6. She also collected the vaginal swab of the victim girl. The victim girl narrated so to this Doctor about rape on her by the appellant-accused. 13. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the nail mark was self inflicted to falsely implicate the appellant but such submission has no leg to stand as the conviction is not only based on the sole testimony of the victim girl but her testimony finds corroboration by medical evidence and also her statement earlier made before the Judicial Magistrate vide Exhibit-10 proved by Tshering Yangchen Lepcha, learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court Barrackpore who recorded statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reflects that the victim was raped by the appellant. 14. As regards the age of the victim girl, since there was no birth certificate collected, there was ossification test in respect of victim held by Dr. 14. As regards the age of the victim girl, since there was no birth certificate collected, there was ossification test in respect of victim held by Dr. Swarup Mondal, PW 12 who has proved the report as Ext.12, which depicts the opinion of doctor that the age of victim girl was more than 17 years but less than 18 years on the date of examination on 03.10.2013. 15. Dr. Subrata Biswas, PW 13 has examined the accused to test his potency who was found capable of sexual intercourse as per report Ext.13. 16. In the context above, in this case the testimony of the victim girl is not only corroborated by her mother and other witnesses but also by the medical evidence that the victim girl was raped by the appellant, the evidence that the victim aged 17+ years well corroborated by the other circumstances convincing the judicial mind, so the evidence of the victim cannot be discarded especially when she has sufficient understanding. 17. Pw14 is the ASI of Police, at Belgharia Police Station drew up a formal FIR by registering specific case at Belgharia P.S. being no. 419 dated 27.09.2013 under Section 376(2) of the IPC read with Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act and proved the formal FIR as Ext.14 on the basis of written complaint as Ext.15. 18. Pw15, Anupam Mondal, SI of Police, took up investigation and examined the witnesses including the victim girl and arranged for sending the victim girl for medical examination. He conducted raid and arrested the accused as named in the FIR. The I.O. has further deposed that the wearing apparels of the victim girl were seized but the same were not sent for forensic test since the clothes were already mixed up with mud and dust. This is the reason as to why the wearing apparels were not sent for FSL report. The I.O. has visited the place of occurrence as displayed in the sketch map. The place of occurrence has been mentioned as Quarter No.37/20, Old Line, Quarter of Chowdhury Rama Rao. But the victim girl has stated about the name of one Md. Muslim that he stayed in that room. 19. It is argued on behalf of the State that said quarter was known in the name of Chhai Maidan and that the I.O. deposed about the said fact. But the victim girl has stated about the name of one Md. Muslim that he stayed in that room. 19. It is argued on behalf of the State that said quarter was known in the name of Chhai Maidan and that the I.O. deposed about the said fact. Further, in Quarter No. B, C, D and E there are residents, namely, Sahajada, Jogindar, Isha and Loddan, but they have not been examined but in my view non-examination of the said neighbouring residents is not fatal to the prosecution case in anxious consideration of the evidence of the victim taken together with the medical evidence and that of the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 20. Now coming to the point of alibi, it is submitted that the accused-appellant has specifically answered to question no.30 during examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., that he was present at the registry office at Cossipore, Dum Dum in between 12 noon to 6 p.m. on 27.09.2013 for registration of a shop room which he purchased and the case has been falsely filed against him. 21. In respect of the alibi taken on behalf of the appellant, the learned Trial Judge has categorically observed that DW 1 had failed to establish conclusively that Daya Shankar Shaw @ Lal Babu Shaw, the appellant, was present at the registry office at that hour. No one has said that the appellant was present at the registry office at that hour. The certified copy of the sale deed (Ext. D) does not conclusively prove that the purchaser of the said land was present throughout the day as argued on behalf of the accused/appellant. 22. Accordingly, the learned Judge did not accept the contention advanced on behalf of the defence that the accused had to remain present in the ADSR, Cossipore, Dum Dum on 27.09.2013 throughout the day but such contention cannot be accepted because the process of registration of sale deed, he was not required to be present throughout the day, or during the period between 12.30 p.m. to 1 p.m. in the afternoon. He could have gone to the office some time later and put his signature on the deed. 23. He could have gone to the office some time later and put his signature on the deed. 23. Apart from certified copy of deed (Ext.D) and the DW 1, no other evidence had been placed in Court even there were other purchasers in the deed being the brothers of the accused-appellant who were not examined in support of plea of alibi. I am of the view that the Trial Judge has rightly held that the alibi has not been proved satisfactorily. 24. It has also been urged that in order to harass the accused, the victim girl has been set up and tutored to speak lies and no importance should be given to her deposition. 25. In this context, the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Panchhi vs. State of U.P., 1998 7 SCC 177 was quoted to argue that the evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him/her and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring. 26. This may not be the same in the present case here as the victim girl is no doubt a child but she had full understanding of what had happened to her to narrate the incident. 27. Mr. Kar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, has pointed out that Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in a catena of decisions that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated with that of an injured witness. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable and trustworthy, the Court should not search for corroboration. At the same time, there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration. If the evidence of the prosecutrix suffers from glaring contradiction, embellishment and exaggeration, her evidence cannot be treated as solitary basis of conviction. 28. There was no quarrel to such proposition of law held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is settled principle of law that the victim would not implicate falsely an innocent person and leave out culprit. If the evidence of the prosecutrix suffers from glaring contradiction, embellishment and exaggeration, her evidence cannot be treated as solitary basis of conviction. 28. There was no quarrel to such proposition of law held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is settled principle of law that the victim would not implicate falsely an innocent person and leave out culprit. I have considered that alibi has not been well-proved on behalf of the appellant, the logical conclusion is that presumption as per the provision Section 29 POCSO Act is attracted which provides that where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Section 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of the 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. 29. It is true that contrary is not required to be proved on behalf of the appellant/accused, since in this case I have found that prosecution has proved its case on the basis of the ocular testimony of the victim girl being corroborated by the medical evidence and the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., I find no plausible ground to interfere into the findings as to the conviction of the accused/appellant. 30. It is submitted that the appellant has already undergone sentence for a period of 6 years 9 months approximately and the remission period taken together he has served out the sentence. Therefore, the Superintendent of the concerned Correctional Home will look into the matter. 31. In the context above, the appeal being CRA 6 of 2016 is dismissed. 32. Let a copy of the judgment along with the lower court records be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary note in the Sessions Trial Register and doing the needful. 33. An extract of this order be sent to the Superintendent of the concerned Correctional Home for information and necessary action. 34. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on completion of all necessary formalities.