JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal is filed questioning the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 25 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default SI for one year. Further compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid to the victim girl. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.01.2021, the Police Saifabad received a complaint Ex.P1 from P.W.1, Dr.Kiranmai of Niloufer Hospital informing the police that the victim girl P.W.2 was admitted in the hospital with ‘battered baby syndrome’ and suspected that P.W.2 child was subjected to sexual abuse. Accordingly, a crime was registered for the offence under Section 376-AB and Section 5 of r/w section 6 of the POCSO Act and investigation handed over to P.W.15. 3. The victim/P.W.2 was initially brought to Niloufer Hospital by her father D.W.1 on 07.1.2021. On finding that the child must have been subjected to sexual abuse, P.W.1 referred the child to P.W.4, Dr.Prithvini for examination, diagnosis and treatment. P.W.4 examined the victim/P.W.1 and noticed multiple bruises on her body, bruised areas over the right side of the neck, orbital echymosis, contusions over the cheeks, bruised areas of the chest abdomen, legs and hands. Further, P.W.4 noticed that the child was unable to sit comfortably due to scratch marks over her buttocks. She also noticed ‘mons pubis contusion and tenderedness, on left labia majora healed abrasion wound, right sided labia was swollen to minimum extend, contusion and congestion over the vulval outlet, periurethral congestion. Her hymen was not intact.’ Due to her condition, it was found that the said injuries found were signs of sexual assault and accordingly swabs and smears and nail clipping of the victim/P.W.2 were collected for the purpose of FSL examination. After receipt of FSL report, P.W.4 dated 15.02.2021 gave opinion that “possibility of sexual assault could not ruled out”. 4. On the basis of the complaint filed by P.W.1 on 09.01.2021 after the initial assessment by P.W.4, the crime was registered under Section 376-AB of IPC, Section 6 read with Section 5 of POCSO Act against unknown accused on 09.01.2021. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that the child was also examined at Bharosa Centre by P.W.13 on 01.02.2021, Section164 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 was recorded on 16.02.2021. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested on 20.02.2021. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that the child was also examined at Bharosa Centre by P.W.13 on 01.02.2021, Section164 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 was recorded on 16.02.2021. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested on 20.02.2021. The trial Court examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. The father of the victim girl examined himself as D.W.1 and also Exs.D1 to D11 were marked on behalf of defence. Exs.D1 to D6 were marked through P.W.8, Ex.D7 was marked through P.W.9 and Exs.D10 and D11 were marked during the evidence of D.W.1. After consideration of the entire evidence, the Sessions Court convicted as stated above. 6. Sri Pradyumnakumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant argued that i) the entire evidence of the prosecution is belied by the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 who initially examined PW2 but stated nothing about any sexual assault and whose evidence is neither disputed nor the witnesses were declared hostile; ii) the reason for false implication of the appellant is apparent from the ongoing disputes between the mother-P.W.3 and father-D.W.1; iii) in view of the disputes, P.W.3-mother has tutored and has fabricated the entire case against the appellant; iv) the tutoring is apparent for the reason of the appellant being arrested for the first time on 20.02.2021 and this delay is not explained since the FIR was registered on 09.01.2021 against unknown and even prior to that the victim child was alleged to have been subjected to sexual abuse; v) the statement recorded by P.W.13 at Bharosa Centre, case sheet of the treatment of the child and also Section 164 statement are suppressed by the prosecution; vi) the evidence of D.W.1 father of the victim girl, who was examined in defence has to be given equal weight as that of the prosecution witness; vii) it is unsafe to place reliance upon the uncorroborated solitary testimony of P.W.2, who is a child; viii) when the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, the Court has no other alternative except to acquit the appellant. 7. 7. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Assam v. Mafizuddin Ahmed, (1983) 2 SCC 14 and drawn the attention of this Court to paras 14 and 15 argued that when the evidence is of vacillating nature in the case of the child, the possibility tutoring cannot be ruled out. He also relied upon the judgment of High Court of Bombay in the case of Janardan Pandurang Kapse v. The State of Maharashtra, Appeal No.838 of 2019, dated 26.08.2021 , which judgment also cautions about the nature of the statement of a five year old being amenable to tutoring and should be scrutinized with extreme care and caution. The other two judgments relied upon i.e., Altaf Ahmed v. State (GNCTD of Delhi, (2020) SCC OnLineDel 1938 and Tejinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2013 (2) ACR 1212 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the case is heinous crime perpetrated on a child aged four years. As seen from the evidence, there is no necessity to falsely implicate the appellant and further after a thorough preliminary enquiry and having been satisfied that the appellant was the person responsible for commission of the sexual abuse on the child, he was arrested. The trial Court had given cogent and convincing reasons at paras 37, 38 and 39 of the judgment and the said findings cannot be interfered with as the same are supported by cogent evidence on record. Except saying that the child was tutored into giving false evidence, no evidence is placed on record to substantiate such false implication and the reasons for doing so. Section 29 of the POCSO Act, shifts the burden on to the appellant and when the prosecution was able to prove that it is the appellant who has committed the offence, the court shall presume such assertion of sexual assault on the child as stated by the witnesses. 9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment in Shamim v. State (GNCT of Delhi), AIR 2018 SC 4529 and relied upon para 13 of the judgment, wherein their Lordships have found on the facts of the said case that the victim’s evidence stood unshaken in spite of prolonged cross-examination and though there are inconsistencies in the evidence. 9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment in Shamim v. State (GNCT of Delhi), AIR 2018 SC 4529 and relied upon para 13 of the judgment, wherein their Lordships have found on the facts of the said case that the victim’s evidence stood unshaken in spite of prolonged cross-examination and though there are inconsistencies in the evidence. If the said inconsistencies are minor and trivial, they should be ignored. 10. The witness P.W.8 examined the child in the month of January, 2021 and after examination P.W.8 found that she was suffering with puffy eyes. Basic treatment was given to her and after six or seven days, the victim was brought by D.W.1 and as she was suffering with body pains and pain in the limbs. Acting on the complaint, P.W.8 referred the victim girl to P.W.9. P.W.9 examined the victim girl on 07.01.2021 and suggested admission of the victim girl for further investigations. However, D.W.1 refused the treatment suggested by P.W.9 and took the victim/P.W.2 to Niloufer Hospital on the same day, where she was examined by P.W.1 and then referred to P.W.4 as narrated in the preceding paras. The learned Senior Counsel submits that P.Ws.8 and 9 did not find any such injuries as stated by P.W.4, for which reason, it has to be inferred that the injuries were either inflicted or received after 07.01.2021. Further in the background of no specific dates being given regarding the alleged assault by the appellant, the prosecution case fails. 11. The fact that the child P.W.2 was living with D.W.1 father is not disputed. In the said house, the grandparents of the victim girl and the appellant were also staying. The victim was taken to the hospital admittedly on more than one occasion for treatment by DW1 father to P.W.8 and P.W.9 doctors. P.W.1 examined the victim girl on 07.01.2021 when she was brought to Niloufer Hospital after being seen by PW.9 and D.W.1 refusing treatment in the hospital of P.W.9. Apparently the father having seen the condition of the child was of the opinion that the suggestion made by P.W.9 for treatment was not correct or acceptable and for the said reason took the child to Niloufer hospital on the same day, i.e., 07.01.2021. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the injuries found by P.W.1 and P.W.4 were received after the examination by P.W.9. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the injuries found by P.W.1 and P.W.4 were received after the examination by P.W.9. For the said reason, when the injuries on PW2 as ascertained by P.W.4 were result of physical and sexual abuse, the burden shifts on to D.W.1 to explain as to how the diagnosis and findings of P.W.4 are incorrect in the background of the victim/PW2 being under his custody, in his house. D.W.1 in his evidence except narrating the differences between his wife and himself has not come up with any reasonable version for false implication of the appellant. 12. The ground of tutoring as argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant is not convincing for the reason of D.W.1 taking the victim to Niloufer hospital on 07.01.2021 and on the same day and the next day, the Doctors P.Ws.1 and 4 after examination suspected that the injuries and the state of the victim girl/PW2 was result of physical and sexual abuse. After the compliant was lodged on 09.01.2021 and treatment, the victim girl was kept at Sishu Vihar. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that P.W.3 who is the mother of the victim has in fact tutored P.W.2/victim girl to make such allegations of sexual abuse against the appellant. Even during the course of Section 313 Cr.P.C examination, the appellant only stated that he was implicated for the reason of matrimonial disputes in between P.W.3 and D.W.1. Neither P.W.1 has come up with any reasoning to convince the Court as to why P.W.3 would have any grouse to grind against the appellant nor the appellant has given any statement during Section 313 Cr.P.C nor during his cross-examination has suggested any motive for false implication. 13. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the chief examination of P.W.2 and argued that the evidence of the child has to be looked into with care and caution. Neither the victim nor the prosecution has given the exact date of occurrence of crime. From the evidence of P.W.2, it is apparent that the child was calling everyone as ‘kaka’ and ‘kaka’ referred to in the chief examination was about the appellant only and none else. The said argument fails for the reason of the specific identification of the appellant by the victim during trial. 14. From the evidence of P.W.2, it is apparent that the child was calling everyone as ‘kaka’ and ‘kaka’ referred to in the chief examination was about the appellant only and none else. The said argument fails for the reason of the specific identification of the appellant by the victim during trial. 14. The argument that the mother has in fact tutored P.W.2 to depose against the appellant also fails for the reason of the specific denial by P.W.2 that P.W.3 did not ask P.W.2 to state any specific act against the appellant. Extract from cross-examination of PW2, which reads: “Before coming to the Court, my mummy ask me to tell about kaka. Mummy did not tell me to say that kaka put his finger in my private part. No one tutored me to tell about kaka. Mummy did not tutor me to tell about daddy and grandmother.” The child P.W.2, who is around 4 to 5 years at the time of examination by the Court, withstood the cross-examination and in clear terms stated that her evidence was not result of any tutoring but on account of the actual happening. 15. In the chief examination, the victim P.W.2 stated as follows: “On one day my Kaka kept his finger in my private part(Victim girl has shown her finger pointing on her private part). When I went to bathroom, Kaka came into the bathroom, beat me, pinched me on my both hands and put his finger in my private part. He also kept his hand on my chest and told me “MARJAO”. In the morning also Kaka told me “MARJAO”. My father used to go to duty and my mother to go to office. At that time myself, Kaka, my father and my grandmother were in the house of Kaka. While Kaka is doing this to me, my father and my grandmother told Kaka “AUR KARO AUR KARO”. My father and my grand mother asked me to stay calm (Chup Chap Bato Boley). They used to made me to sleep near the wall.” Drawing attention to the above chief examination, learned counsel for the appellant argued that whatever she stated was highly improbable regarding “AUR KARO AUR KARO” about father and grandmother and “MARJAO” by the appellant. My father and my grand mother asked me to stay calm (Chup Chap Bato Boley). They used to made me to sleep near the wall.” Drawing attention to the above chief examination, learned counsel for the appellant argued that whatever she stated was highly improbable regarding “AUR KARO AUR KARO” about father and grandmother and “MARJAO” by the appellant. Further, when such is the case it amounts to abetment and the prosecution should have implicated D.W.1-father and also the grandmother as abettors of the crime but no such steps were taken, which itself indicates that the prosecution version as stated by P.W.2 cannot be believed. 16. The evidence of 4-5 year old child has to be looked into and treated with caution. In the present case as per the prosecution, the injuries on the victim girl were over a period of time as seen from the evidence of P.W.8, who has given treatment. In the said circumstances of a battered child over a period of time as stated by the prosecution, it is only natural that the child would recollect several incidents and state them. However, the evidence of the appellant committing penetrative sexual assault was stated by the child and also identified that it was the appellant who was the perpetrator of the said assault. 17. As already discussed the evidence of P.W.2, the sequence of events from 07.01.2021 till the arrest of appellant on 20.02.2021 are convincing and leave no element of doubt regarding the prosecution case being incorrect. For the said reason, the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge requires no interference. 18. However, the sentence of imprisonment of 25 years is reduced to 20 years which is the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 6 of POCSO Act. The quantum of fine and compensation remain unaltered. 19. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, except the reduction of sentence of rigorous imprisonment to 20 years. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.