JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.4.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO), Kunkuri, District Jashpur in Special Sessions Case No. 39/2017 holding him guilty under Sections 342, 363, 354 (A)(i) IPC and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”) and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 342 IPC, RI for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s 363 and 354(A)(i) IPC each, and RI for five years with fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Failure in payment of fine under all the aforesaid sections carries default stipulations as well. 2. Case put forth by the prosecution in brief is that on 3.11.2017 at about 3.30 pm FIR (Ex.P-5) was lodged by Smt. Kalawati Chakresh (PW-3) stating that on 1.11.2017 at about 5 pm two girls of her locality namely Nandni (PW5) and Reshmi (PW-7) told her that on that day at about 3.30 pm during recess period when the prosecutrix (PW-4) aged about 7 years studying in Class-2 was playing outside the school premises, the accused/appellant herein took her into his house and closed the door from inside. FIR also states that on commotion being made and his doors being hit with the stones, the accused/appellant opened the door and the prosecutrix came out. On being asked as to what the accused was doing inside the house, she allegedly disclosed that he was touching her vaginal periphery. When her mother (PW-3) - the lodger of the report too asked the prosecutrix on the basis of information provided by the aforesaid two girls, she reaffirmed the things stating that on the fateful day when she was playing outside the school, the accused/appellant took her to his house by hands, asked her to lie down and touched the vaginal periphery from over the clothes. Based on this, offences under Sections 363, 354 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act were registered against the accused/appellant. Based on this, offences under Sections 363, 354 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act were registered against the accused/appellant. On requisite procedural formalities being completed during investigation, such as drawing of spot map, recording of police statements, getting the prosecutrix medically examined, effecting arrest of the accused etc, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 363, 354, 342, 376 IPC and Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. Court below however framed the charge under Sections 363, 342, 376 (2) (f) IPC and Sections 5 (m) and 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC has also been recorded where he has simply taken a plea of innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as per the description given hereinbefore vide judgment dated 8.4.2019 which is under assail in this appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the accused/appellant as referred to above is not in conformity with the evidence collected by the prosecution and therefore it is liable to be set aside. He submits that despite number of contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses, the Court below has fallen in a serious legal error in abruptly arriving at the conclusion of holding him guilty of the acts falling in sections 342, 363, 354(A)(i) IPC and 10 of the POCSO Act. He further submits that for determination the exact age of the prosecutrix, the prosecution should have resorted to ossification test as well. According to him, medical evidence also does not stand by the prosecution, and that owing to some family dispute, the appellant has been implicated by the mother of the prosecutrix in a false case. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court being based on due appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, ocular and medical, require no interference in this appeal. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the judgment impugned. 8. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court being based on due appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, ocular and medical, require no interference in this appeal. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the judgment impugned. 8. Learned Trial Court first assessed the maturity level and mental ability of the seven year old prosecutrix by putting a general questionnaire to her and after being satisfied about the same, it proceeded to record her evidence. The prosecutrix has stated that she knew the accused and disclosed his name as well. She has stated that during recess period, the accused/appellant dragged her to his house, put the door on latches and made her lie down. After seeing a woman's photograph on internet made available by the Court, she promptly referred to the private part where the accused/appellant had touched after making her lie down and sliding her underwear. He is also stated to have been poking his penis into her private part. She has reiterated that when the accused was doing that, Nandni (PW5) was crying from outside, which made him leave her and open the door. The prosecutrix has denied that her deposition is based on tutoring either from her parents or anyone else. She has stated that son of the accused used to visit her house and so did she, but occasionally. Another important witness is Nandni (PW-5) – the cousin of the prosecutrix and studying in the same school. Supporting the evidence of prosecutrix, she has stated that on the date of incident the accused took the prosecutrix to his house by hand and shut the door from inside. Thereafter, she along with her friends also went there, cried out for the prosecutrix and when she came out little later, her trouser was out of place and that she was weeping. On being asked as to what had happened to her, she first hesitated a bit, and eventually disclosed that the accused had slept over her. Prosecutrix is stated to have informed this witness that the accused had gagged her mouth and touched her vaginal vicinity. On being asked as to what had happened to her, she first hesitated a bit, and eventually disclosed that the accused had slept over her. Prosecutrix is stated to have informed this witness that the accused had gagged her mouth and touched her vaginal vicinity. In paragraph No.6 of her deposition, she has emphatically stated that it is not that the incident was narrated to her by someone else, but she herself had seen the same. She has denied that on account of the earlier dispute between the accused and her father she had deposed a falsity against the accused. Almost similar narration has been given by Sanjita (PW6), Reshmi (PW-7) and Nyasa (PW-13). Smt. Kalawati Chakresh (PW-3) – the mother of the prosecutrix has also supported the case of the prosecution and stated that after coming to know about the incident where the accused had taken the prosecutrix to his house, closed the door from inside, made her lie down, started touching her private part, she went to the house of the accused but as he was not found there, she accompanied by one school teacher namely Nadeem, went to the police station and lodged the report. She had also given the consent for the medical examination of the prosecutrix. 9. Smt. Modisa Ekka (PW-1) is the school teacher who has been examined to prove the age of the prosecutrix. She has produced the school admission register in which the date of birth of the prosecutrix is recorded as 27.10.2010 based on which, on the date of incident she was just seven year old. This fact also gets strengthened from the fact that at the relevant time she was studying in class–2 and even assuming that she had been admitted in the school at the age of 5, she could have safely been about 7 at the relevant time. The defence has not brought anything on record to falsify this date of birth entered in the school register to establish the fact that at the relevant time she was not below 12 years of age. Yet another important witness in this case is Dr. B.P. Sushma Kujur (PW-10) who medically examined the prosecutrix and gave her report (Ex. P-10) stating therein that she noticed mild swelling with small healing abrasion over upper lip in mid region - in the size of .2x.2 cm approximately. Yet another important witness in this case is Dr. B.P. Sushma Kujur (PW-10) who medically examined the prosecutrix and gave her report (Ex. P-10) stating therein that she noticed mild swelling with small healing abrasion over upper lip in mid region - in the size of .2x.2 cm approximately. She also noticed an abrasion in the size of .2x.3 cm over the right 4th toe. These injuries are opined to be caused with hard and rough surface/object within 3-5 days duration. Medical report Ex. P-10 also mentions the age of the prosecutrix as 7 years. Investigating officer (PW-12) has also supported the case of the prosecution. 10. Thus if the aforesaid factual matrix is seen carefully in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, in particular that of the victim, this Court is of the considered opinion that by removing the girl child from lawful guardianship, taking her to his house, bolting the door from inside, making physical contact with her and touching her vagina with sexual intent, the complicity of the accused in the crime in question is fully established. Prosecutrix had been fully consistent in giving narration of the incident everywhere i.e. in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC by the police, under Section 164 CrPC made before the Magistrate as also in the evidence recorded during trial, which received corroboration from the evidence of Sanjita (PW-6), Reshmi (PW-7), Nyasa (PW-13) and Smt. Kalawati Chakresh (PW-3). This Court is not in agreement with the submission of the counsel for the appellant that on account of family dispute the appellant has been roped in a false case by the mother of the victim. It is for the reason that no parent would implicate anyone on account of a trivial family dispute by putting at stake the entire future of their own girl child by making such ignominious character-related imputations which are bound to bring a life-long infamy to her in the society. Being all this, the conviction of the accused/appellant as described above does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and is maintained as such. So also the sentence imposed also does not appear to be disproportionate and is the minimum prescribed in the relevant provisions of law. 11. The judgment impugned is thus upheld and the appeal stands dismissed. 12. Being all this, the conviction of the accused/appellant as described above does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and is maintained as such. So also the sentence imposed also does not appear to be disproportionate and is the minimum prescribed in the relevant provisions of law. 11. The judgment impugned is thus upheld and the appeal stands dismissed. 12. As the appellant is already in jail, no order in this regard is necessary to be passed. 13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary compliance.