JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.08.2019, passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO), North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in connection with case No. Special (POCSO) 07 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the convictappellant has been convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year along with a fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation, for commission of offence punishable under Section 354 A(1)(i) of IPC and further to suffer R.I. for 3(three) years along with a fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation, for commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 2. Facts, as projected by learned Special Judge are reproduced hereunder: 'The factual backdrop of the case is that one Smt. Gouri Nath, wife of Samiran Nath of East Huplong, Ward No.04, PS-Dharmanagar, North Tripura District lodged an Ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of Dharmanagar Women Police Station to the effect that on 18-04-2018 at about 0200 hours at night her victim daughter (real name withheld) along with her father and two younger brothers went to see the 'Kali Nritya' of Charak Puja at Radhapur Bhumihin Colony and after seeing the 'Kali Nritya' at about 0330 hours the victim along with her father returned home and thereafter her father went to sleep and the victim went out to attend natures call and at that time Pintu Nath came there and with sexual intent touched her private parts and there was also another boy and when the two younger brothers of the victim came and finding the victim missing in the house started calling her by her name and hearing their call the sister in law of the complainant also came and then the accused persons fled away. It is also stated that the complainant was not at home on the date of the incident and after coming home hearing the fact of the incident from her victim daughter she lodged the complaint.' 3. Based on the aforesaid facts, the Officer-in-Charge of Dharmanagar Police Station had registered the FIR No.2018 WDN 009 under Sections 354/34 of IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused-appellant and took up the investigation. 4. Based on the aforesaid facts, the Officer-in-Charge of Dharmanagar Police Station had registered the FIR No.2018 WDN 009 under Sections 354/34 of IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused-appellant and took up the investigation. 4. During investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statements of the victim girl; arranged for her medical examination; seized her birth certificate (Exbt.3 series) as well as the school certificate (Exbt.7); arranged for T.I. parade to confirm the identity of the accused and also arranged for recording statements of the victim girl under Section 164(5) of CrPC. Having satisfied that a prima facie case is established, the investigating officer had submitted charge-sheet. 5. At the commencement of trial, charges were framed against the accused-appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354/34 of IPC. It was read over to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. 6. During trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 7 witnesses. 7. After conclusion of trial, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he stated that he had been falsely implicated with the case and claimed to be innocent. 8. Learned Special Judge had held that the charges framed against the accused-appellant had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, learned Special Judge had convicted and sentenced the accused as aforestated. 9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this court. 10. I have heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Ghosh learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent. 11. Appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant, Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim girl. Furthermore, the victim girl was consenting party to the incident. Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel has tried to persuade this court by inviting attention of this court that the victim has improved her story what she stated before learned Magistrate at the time of recording of her statements under Section 164(5) of CrPC. Learned counsel further submits that the victim has contradicted her statements recorded under Section 164(5) of CrPC at the time of deposition before the court on oath. Learned counsel further submits that the victim has contradicted her statements recorded under Section 164(5) of CrPC at the time of deposition before the court on oath. Learned counsel Ms. Purkayastha has contended that vital witnesses, namely, Bapan Nath and Smt. Chanchala Nath were withheld by the prosecution without any explanation. 12. On the other hand, Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent has strongly relied upon the findings returned by learned Special Judge in convicting the accused-appellant. Mr. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. submitted that there is no contradiction between the statements of the victim girl what she stated in the deposition and before the Magistrate under Section 164(5) of CrPC. 13. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels, I have perused the evidences and materials on record as adduced by the prosecution. 14. PW-1, the mother of the victim deposed that on 18.04.2018 she was not at home as she went to her parental house. On the same day at night, her husband along with her victim daughter and other sons went to attend a religious ceremony. At about 03:30 A.M. they returned to house. The father of the victim went to sleep and her victim daughter went out to attend nature s call. At that time, the accused had arrived there and with sexual intent touched her private parts. On her (PW-1) return to house, the victim narrated the incident to her. Thereafter, she had taken her daughter to the police station to lodge a complaint against the accused-appellant. She produced the birth certificate (Exbt.3 series) of the victim girl which was seized by the investigating officer. She identified the birth certificate. Moreso, PW-1 during her deposition has categorically stated that at the time of incident her victim daughter was aged about 15 years. The defence could not elicit any material contradiction from her cross-examination. 15. PW-2, the victim girl deposed that while she went for nature s call, the accused along with another boy had arrived there, the accused pressed her mouth and touched her breasts. Her two brothers came out of the room to look for her. They identified the accused. The victim also could identify the accused as he was a boy of the same village. Her two brothers came out of the room to look for her. They identified the accused. The victim also could identify the accused as he was a boy of the same village. Ultimately, the accused had fled away from the spot having noticed the arrival of her brothers. PW-2 further deposed that she made her statements before the Magistrate narrating the incident. She further deposed that she was taken to the Jail to attend T.I. parade. In the T.I. parade the victim (PW-2) had identified the accused-appellant who committed the offence. During cross-examination, the defence tried to elicit the fact that the victim had arrived there out of her own will and volition, which she denied. 16. PW-3, Swapan Nath is a teacher of Huplong Village High School. He deposed that he had written the contents of the school certificate issued and signed by the Headmaster of the concerned school. On identification, the school certificate has been marked as Exbt.7 and his signature on the seizure list has been marked as Exbt.6. During cross-examination, PW-3 stated that there was no endorsement in the certificate to the effect that the said certificate was written by him. He further stated that there was no Admission Book No. and Registration No. in the certificate. 17. PW-4 is another teacher who put his signature in the seizure list of the school certificate. 18. PW-5, Pritam Nath is the brother of the victim. He deposed that his victim sister being not found in the room, he along with his another brother had searched for her with a torch light and he found Pritam standing over there. At that time, one Bapan of the same village had arrived. His uncle also had arrived at the scene of occurrence. Pritam was asked what he was doing at that late night but instead of replying, Pritam started calling upon Pintu saying bachao bachao . Pintu came out from the jungle and both of them ran away. 19. PW-6 is the investigating officer. PW-7 is the Magistrate who conducted the T.I. parade. 20. While appreciating the aforesaid evidence and materials on record, I find no contradiction between the statements which the victim deposed before the court and the statements she made before the Magistrate. The vital part of her statements is that at the time of incident she went for her nature s call. 20. While appreciating the aforesaid evidence and materials on record, I find no contradiction between the statements which the victim deposed before the court and the statements she made before the Magistrate. The vital part of her statements is that at the time of incident she went for her nature s call. The accused had arrived at the spot, pressed her mouth and touched her private parts. On arrival of her brothers and others the accused-appellant had fled away. 21. Considering the submissions made by Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellant that there are some contradictions in between the statements of the victim girl what she had deposed before the court and the statements recorded under Section 164(5) of CrPC, I have again perused her statements recorded under Section 164(5) of CrPC. Here also I find that the victim girl has stated that due to her nature s call when she went outside of her room, the accused came and pressed her mouth and touched her private parts. Therefore, according to me, the victim is found to be very consistent to her statements that she went out for nature s call; the accused had appeared, pressed her mouth and touched her private parts. As such, I repel the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that there are contradictions between the statements of the victim girl during her examination under Section 164(5) of CrPC and the statements she made before the court. 22. Next, I find that the age of the girl has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The birth certificate was issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths. The mother, PW-1 has confirmed the age of the victim girl. It is settled position of law that the statements of parents are the best evidence regarding the age of the children. In the instant case, the statements of PW-1 regarding age of her victim daughter remains unimpeached and gets substantial support from the birth certificate issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths which is further corroborated by the school certificate (Exbt.7). 23. On overall assessment of the aforesaid materials and evidence on record, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as returned by learned Special Judge (POCSO), North Tripura, Dharmanagar. 24. 23. On overall assessment of the aforesaid materials and evidence on record, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as returned by learned Special Judge (POCSO), North Tripura, Dharmanagar. 24. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.08.2019, passed in Special (POCSO) 07/2018 stands affirmed and upheld. The appeal stands dismissed. It is informed that accused-appellant is on bail. So, his bail bond is cancelled. Surety of the bail bond is discharged from his liability. 25. The accused-appellant, Sri Sujit Nath alias Sujit Debnath alias Pintu is directed to surrender before the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), North Tripura District, Dharmanagar within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, learned Special Judge shall ensure the arrest of the accused-appellant to serve the remaining period of sentence. Needless to say, the period of imprisonment he suffered after his arrest or during trial shall be set off. Send back the LCRs forthwith.