JUDGMENT : 1. The accused faced charge(s), for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 354A, and under Section 354B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), and, also faced charge for an offence, punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”). 2. The learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, through, his verdict, drawn upon Sessions trial No. 38 of 2018, made a verdict of conviction against the accused and, in consonance therewith, through a separate sentencing order, pronounced on 05.08.2019, the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, proceeded to sentence the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for, a term of four years, and, to also pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/, and, in default of payment of fine, he sentenced the accused, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months, for the commission of an offence, punishable under Section 354B of IPC. 3. A reading of paragraph 48 of the sentencing order, as made by the learned Special Judge, Hamipur, on 05.08.2019, and, as becomes extracted hereafter: “In the present case, the convict has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354B of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. Section 42 provides that where an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under Sections 354A and 354B etc. of IPC, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to be punished under this Act or under Penal Code as provided for punishment which is greater in degree. Section 8 of POCSO Act provides the punishment for a term which shall not be less than 3 years but may extend to 5 years and also with fine. Section 354A of IPC provides a Rigorous Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and with fine. Section 354B of IPC provides for the punishment of not less than 3 years but which may extend to 7 years and also with fine. Thus, the punishment under Section 354B of IPC is greater in degree than Section 8 of POCSO Act. Section 354B of IPC provides for the punishment of not less than 3 years but which may extend to 7 years and also with fine. Thus, the punishment under Section 354B of IPC is greater in degree than Section 8 of POCSO Act. Hence, the convict is to be sentenced under Section 354B of IPC.” is explicatory, visavis, the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, proceeding to impose the afore drawn punishment(s), both of imprisonment, and of fine upon the accused, besides his imposing the default sentence upon him, only for a charge drawn under Section 354B of the IPC, and, also it is explicatory vis-à-vis, his not proceeding to impose any punishment, upon the accused, for his committing an offence(s) constituted under Section 354A of IPC, and, under Section 8 of POCSO Act. 4. The brief facts, as emerge from the prosecution case, are that on 14.05.2018, around 5:00 p.m., while the prosecutrix (name withheld) had gone outside in connection, with some work, the accused caught hold of her, and, removed her clothes. However, the victim pushed him, and, ran towards her house, and, narrated this incident to her mother. Her mother narrated the incident to the villagers. The accused was brought and police was called. The mother of the victim handed over a written complaint to the police, which was sent to the police station, for registration of FIR. After completing all the codal formalities, the accused was arrested, and, the accused was charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354B of IPC, and, under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 5. The FIR as become lodged, vis-a-vis the charged offences, is carried in Ext.PW2/A. Subsequently, the minor prosecutrix made a statement before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, statement whereof, is borne in Ext. PW1/A. In Ext. PW1/ A she though did not show her acquaintance with the name of the accused. However, she in tandem with the statement, borne in Ext. PW2/A, rather made narrations therein. Moreover, she also made echoings therein, that she can proceed to identify the accused. 6. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has relied upon the statement of the prosecutrix, who stepped into the witness box as PW1. However, she in tandem with the statement, borne in Ext. PW2/A, rather made narrations therein. Moreover, she also made echoings therein, that she can proceed to identify the accused. 6. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has relied upon the statement of the prosecutrix, who stepped into the witness box as PW1. After the learned trial Magistrate meted queries to her, for determining, her competence to depose, and, with the prosecutrix meteing satisfactory answer(s) thereto(s), rather, constrained the learned trial Magistrate to declare her to be a competent witness, hence the minor prosecutrix deposed in the completest concurrence with the version, with respect to the genesis of the prosecution case, and, as becomes borne in the FIR, comprised in Ext. PW2/A. She also disclosed therein, that while she, after pushing the accused, fled towards her house, she during the course of running towards her house, sustained injuries on her foot, with a broken piece of glass. 7. She stood subjected to the ordeal of, a, rigorous cross-examination, by the learned defence counsel. She therein acquiesced to a suggestion, that she disclosed the incident to none other, than her mother. Moreover, she also disclosed in her cross-examination, that she does not know the name of the accused. However, she volunteered in her statement, that she can recognize the accused from his face, as he belongs to another village occurring on the lower side of her village. She also acquiesced to the suggestion, that prior to the police arriving at the relevant site, the accused and his mother were caught with a pole, and, they were given beatings by the villagers. 8. The mother of the prosecutrix, has stepped into the witness box as PW2, and, in her examination-in-chief, she has completely proven the recitals appertaining to the genesis of the prosecution case, as embodied in Ext. PW2/A. In her cross-examination, the learned defence counsel instead of putting suggestions, to her, in denial of the accused visiting the shop of one Bullu, and, there froms his purchasing a bundle of Beedi(s), rather, proceeded to couch a suggestion in an acquiescing phraseology, inasmuch as, the accused arriving at shop, of, one Bullu, for purchasing a bundle of Beedi(s), and, whereto an acquiescing answer become elicited from PW2. 9. 9. PW4, though in his examination-in-chief has deposed, that she saw the victim fleeing from the relevant site, and, has also deposed, that she noticed the underwear of the prosecutrix slipping down. However, when she did not fully support the prosecution version. Consequently, after the learned Public Prosecutor seeking an affirmative permission, from the learned trial Court, for hers becoming declared hostile, he proceeded to cross-examine, PW4. PW4 in her cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, revealed that, after hers making an inquiry, from the victim, hers becoming intimated by the victim, that she was caught on the way by, a, Pagal running towards her house. She also in her cross-examination, acquiesced to a suggestion that when she returned, she had noticed the accused fleeing from the site of occurrence. She also acquiesced to the suggestion, that the victim told her that she will only narrate the incident to her mother. Since the accused was evidently hence waiting prior to the occurrence, in proximity to the site of occurrence, thereupon, the accused, became evidently sighted by PW2. Moreover, the sequel thereof, is that both the victim and the accused were in proximity to the site of occurrence, thereupon, the occurrence, as narrated by the prosecutrix does acquire an aura of truth. Consequently, the afore deposition, as made by PW4, cannot belie the prosecutrix inasmuch as hers declaring in her deposition, that she had narrated the incident to none other, than her mother. Conspicuously, since the afore deposition, does not unfold, that the prosecutrix had narrated the occurrence to PW4, in the same manner, as she had narrated it to her mother. 10. PW5, in her testification, comprised in her examination-in-chief, echoes that she noticed the accused sitting in the company, of, the victim, and, that the accused on seeing her, fleeing from the site of occurrence. Furthermore, she has also deposed, that upon hers querying the victim about the incident, rather the victim intimating her, that, she would reveal the incident only to her mother. Therefore, even the deposition of PW4, does not belie the prosecutrix, inasmuch as, hers testifying that, she had unfolded the occurrence only to her mother. 11. Furthermore, she has also deposed, that upon hers querying the victim about the incident, rather the victim intimating her, that, she would reveal the incident only to her mother. Therefore, even the deposition of PW4, does not belie the prosecutrix, inasmuch as, hers testifying that, she had unfolded the occurrence only to her mother. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant, has, made, a, vigorous address, before this Court that since the victim was unaware about the name of the accused, thereupon, hers identifying the accused in the Court, without prior thereto, any valid test identification parade, being carried out, rather is not amenable for any evidentiary vigor, becoming assigned thereto. However, the afore made submission is not worthy of acceptance. The reason being, that the prosecutrix has deposed in her statement, as made before the learned Magistrate concerned, that though she is not aware of the name of the accused, yet, she would proceed to identify him. 12. The learned defence counsel, however did not ever strive, to either falsify the afore made statement by the victim, before the learned Magistrate concerned, through his ensuring the stepping into the witness box, of the learned Magistrate concerned, nor also with the learned defence counsel, after the prosecutrix in her cross-examination, disclosing that, despite hers not being aware of the name of the accused, yet hers volunteering to state that she can recognize him from his face, as he belongs from a village occurring on the lower side of her village, making any further cross-examination, upon, the prosecutrix, hence to belie the afore factum. Therefore, it can be easily inferred, that the prosecutrix was aware of the identity of the accused, and, also about his physical features, and, also hence dehors, no valid test identification parade, being conducted, prior to hers identifying the accused, in the Court, rather the factum of hers, hence identifying the accused only in the Court, does not benumb, the efficacy of the afore made identification in the Court, of the accused, rather by the victim. The afore drawn inference, gathers immense vigour from the learned defence counsel, proceeding to put an acquiescing suggestion to her, whereto an acquiescing answer become elicited from the prosecutrix, and, appertaining to the afore factum that, before the arrival of the police at the site of occurrence, the accused, and, his mother being caught and tied with a pole, and, their(s) being given beatings by the villagers. Importantly, when the accused has not been able to furnish any valid explanation in respect thereof. Therefore, this Court is constrained to conclude that the identification of the accused in Court, by the prosecutrix, is completely valid. 13. Moreso, the learned defence counsel, has been unable to belie the factum, as narrated by the prosecutrix, in her cross-examination, that the accused belongs to a village occurring on the lower side of her village, whereupon, obviously dehors hers not knowing the name of the accused, she became facilitated to validly identify the accused, hence only in Court. 14. Be that as it may, strengthened vigor to the afore made inference becomes marshalled, from PW2, who upon hers stepping into the witness box, has also proceeded to identify the accused, in the Court, and, further from the factum, that the learned defence counsel while subjecting her to cross-examination, rather putting an affirmative suggestion to her, that the accused was purchasing a bundle of Beedi(s) from the shop concerned, immediately prior to his taking to assault the victim, and, whereto an affirmative answer become echoed by PW2. Therefore, a, valid inference become erected, that the accused was prior to his making the incriminatory assault upon the victim, rather sighted at the shop concerned, by PW2. Therefore, it can be clinchingly inferred that both, victim and PW4, were aware of the identity of the accused, and, that the identification of the accused by the victim, only in the Court, is not ridden with any legal fallacy, arising from no valid testification parade being prior thereto, rather conducted by the Investigating Officer concerned. 15. Since PW5 has also, deposed that she had last seen the accused to be sitting with the victim, and, the latter on seeing her fleeing from the site of occurrence. 15. Since PW5 has also, deposed that she had last seen the accused to be sitting with the victim, and, the latter on seeing her fleeing from the site of occurrence. Since the afore deposition remained unbelied, therefore, the afore valid identification of the accused, in the Court by the prosecutrix, and, corroborated by PWs 2, 4 and 5, dehors any valid test identification parade, being prior thereto, hence carried out by the Investigating Officer concerned, does obviously assume immense creditworthiness. 16. Since the defence has not been able to mete a valid explanation with respect to the afore unrebutted factum, therefore, the afore factum, does fall, in alignment with the narrations, as contained in FIR, as carried in Ext. PW2/A. 17. Since the prosecutrix at the relevant time, was aged 08 years, therefore, suggestions, if any, as became meted to all the prosecution witnesses concerned, and, devolving upon hers willfully and consensually succumbing to the incriminatory assault, as made upon her, by the accused, do not, carry any evidentiary vigor. 18. The prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief, has deposed, that when she was fleeing from the site of occurrence, she sustained injuries upon her foot, hence with a broken piece of glass. Corroboration to the afore made deposition, is received, from the testification, made by PW8, who during the course of her cross-examination, proved MLC, Ext. PW8/A, as became drawn, by her in pursuant to hers conducting medical examination upon the prosecutrix. Since therein, simple injuries, occur on the right heel of the prosecutrix. Consequently, therethrough, obviously there is the completest concurrence inter se the afore made deposition by the prosecutrix, hence, with credible medical evidence. Therefore, this Court assigns the completest credence to the deposition of the prosecutrix. 19. In summa, this Court finds no merit in the extant appeal and the same is dismissed. The impugned verdict as made by the learned first Appellate Court is maintained. All pending application(s), stand(s) disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.