JUDGMENT : ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J. 1. The instant appeal had been directed against judgment and order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Special Case No. 2 of 2014 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer three years of rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case originated on the basis of the complaint lodged by the victim girl precisely stating on her way to return from school she used to avail one STS bus. On 04.11.2013 at about 3:00 P.M she boarded the aforesaid bus to return home. The appellant alongwith Hariprasad boarded the said bus when it reached Laxmipur bus stop alongwith certain school boys and girls who were the residents of Milangran basti, the appellant and his aforesaid companion started to harass the school girls present in the bus. They disturbed them uttering filthy language. One of her companion girls left her seat being offended by the language used by the perpetrators and approached the front side of the bus. While she was intercepted by the appellant Sameer Mondal who caught hold of her private parts from the back, she escaped from his clutches and ran ahead. The other convict Hari Prashad grasped the hands of two other girl students and placed his hands on the shoulder of another girl student who resisted him. When the victim went to alight from the bus the appellant Sameer Mondal touched her buttocks, pulled her towards him by holding her waist and kept his hands on her chest. Being prevented by the victim girl the appellant laughed loudly. The victim girl thereafter on reaching her house reported the incident to the Police and lodged the complaint at the Police Station. 3. Based on the complaint, Diglipur Police Station Case No. 58/13 dated 4.11.2013 was initiated under Section 354/34 IPC and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Investigation progressed and resulted in the submission of Charge Sheet being No. 068/2013 dated 30.11.2013 to which both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Investigation progressed and resulted in the submission of Charge Sheet being No. 068/2013 dated 30.11.2013 to which both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case cited eight witnesses and exhibited certain documents. The defence cited two defence witnesses. 5. The Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the prosecution did not cite any independent witness to justify its case. The bus driver as well as the conductor were not examined. He stressed upon the contradiction in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses as follows: (a) PW-1 the victim stated in his examination in chief that Hari Prashad Biswas caught hold the hands of “XY” and PW-7, he also placed his hand on their breast, whereas PW-7 stated that PW-3 called her and stated that Sameer Mondal liked her, thereafter Sameer Mondal also arrived at the place and placed his hand on PW-7’s back who was under the influence of liquor. PW-7 further stated that she tried to escape but Sameer Mondal did not allow her to go. Sameer Mondal boarded the bus and thereafter remarked silly comments at PW-7 in Bengali language and disclosed that he would marry her The statement of PW-7 was not corroborated by other witnesses. (b) PW-7 in her examination in chief further stated that when her bus stop arrived, she got down from the bus and went back to her house. Sameer Mondal also teased other girls travelling in the said bus. The other girls students who were travelling by the bus came to her and asked her to go to the police station for lodging complaint. (c) PW-1 stated in her examination in chief that Sameer Mondal arrived by her side and started uttering silly abusive language. When her bus stop arrived and she intended to get down, Sameer Mondal caught hold her hand and touched her breast and private parts. The statement of PW-1 was not corroborated by other witnesses. (d) PW-1 in her cross examination stated that in the said bus only Driver, conductor and school students were travelling and no General public was present whereas PW-3 in her cross examination stated that it was fact that there were 2/3 common passengers besides the students. The statement of PW-1 was not corroborated by other witnesses. (d) PW-1 in her cross examination stated that in the said bus only Driver, conductor and school students were travelling and no General public was present whereas PW-3 in her cross examination stated that it was fact that there were 2/3 common passengers besides the students. (e) PW-2 stated in her examination in chief that Sameer Mondal arrived by the side of PW-6 and touched her breast, she removed his hand and went to the front side of the bus whereas PW-6 in her examination in chief state she could not remember whether any incident had occurred on 04.11.2013 to her or not. (f) PW-2 further stated in her examination in chief that Hari Prashad arrived at her side and touched her shoulder and she removed his hand. The statement of PW-2 was not corroborated by other witnesses. (g) PW-2 further stated in her cross examination the “we have reported the said incident of teasing to the driver and conductor but they had not taken any steps” whereas PW-3 stated she had not stated anything to the driver and the conductor of that bus but other girls lodged complaint. (h) PW-3 stated in her examination in chief stated that Sameer Mondal caught hold of her hand and she snatched away her hand and that Sameer Mondal said “I Love You” to her. The statement of PW-3 was not corroborated by other witnesses. (i) PW-3 further stated in her examination in chief that Sameer Mondal also caught hold of PW-2’s hand whereas Hari Prashad arrived at her side and touched her shoulder and she removed his hand. (j) PW-3 stated in her examination in chief that Hari Prashad Biswas caught PW-7’s hand whereas PW-7 stated that PW-3 called her and stated that Sameer Mondal liked her, thereafter Sameer Mondal also arrived at the place and placed his hand on PW-7’s back and at that time Sameer Mondal was under the influence of liquor. PW-7 further stated that she tried to escape but Sameer Mondal did not allow her to go. Then Sameer Mondal boarded the bus and thereafter passed some silly comments aiming towards PW-7 in Bengali language, he also disclosed that he would marry her. (k) PW-7 stated in her cross examination that PW-1 was not known to her. PW-7 further stated that she tried to escape but Sameer Mondal did not allow her to go. Then Sameer Mondal boarded the bus and thereafter passed some silly comments aiming towards PW-7 in Bengali language, he also disclosed that he would marry her. (k) PW-7 stated in her cross examination that PW-1 was not known to her. (l) PW-7 stated that Sameer Mondal blocked her road by standing in front of her. The statement of PW-7 was not corroborated by other witnesses. (m) PW-6 was declared hostile. 6. He further submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that PW-6 did not support the case of the prosecution and in her cross-examination by the defence she denied that she had given any statement to the police and she categorically stated that the appellant and the convict Hari Prashad Biswas had not touched her body whereas PW-2 alleged that the appellant touched the breast of PW-7 and PW-7 removed the hand of the appellant and then went to the front side of the said bus. 7. It was further submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Investigating officer in her cross-examination categorically accepted that she did not try to ascertain the registration number of the bus, nor prepared any sketch map, nor tried to ascertain whether at that particular time any bus was plying from Lakshmi Pur to Milan Gram or not. She also did not try to ascertain as to who was the driver and conductor of the said bus, or tried to ascertain how many passengers were there inside the bus and she stated there was no reason for examining the driver and conductor of the bus, she also accepted that she had not assigned any reason for not examining of other students of the class of the victim girls. 8. It was further submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant had adduced two witnesses. DW-1 namely Kalpana Mondal stated that on 04.11.2013 she boarded the bus from Diglipur to Hatilevel. PW-1, Hari Prashad Biswas and the appellant boarded the said bus and she was sitting at the back seat there in and an altercation occurred between PW-1and the appellant for two-three minutes and all of them de-boarded the bus. 9. DW-1 namely Kalpana Mondal stated that on 04.11.2013 she boarded the bus from Diglipur to Hatilevel. PW-1, Hari Prashad Biswas and the appellant boarded the said bus and she was sitting at the back seat there in and an altercation occurred between PW-1and the appellant for two-three minutes and all of them de-boarded the bus. 9. It was further submitted the appellant examined one more witness as DW-2 namely as Kattapomman, who stated that he had known the appellant and Hari Prashad Biswas. On 04.11.2013 he boarded the bus from Diglipur to Milan Gram and was sitting on the seat allotted for Senior citizen which was behind the seat of the conductor, the bus was crowded, many students boarded in the said bus from Lakshmi Pur, the appellant and Hari Prashad Biswas handed over their respective bags to him and they stood behind him and he did not find anything unusual during his entire journey. The appellant and Hari Prashad Biswas got down from the bus along with him and on the next day he came to know that the victim girl preferred complaint against the appellant and Hari Prashad Biswas, as there was prior enmity between the parties on the issue of chickens and ducks. 10. It was further submitted that the Trial Court wrongly recorded that DWs had stated there was no enmity between the family members of the appellant and the complainant victim girl. 11. It was further submitted that the Trial Court without considering the contradictions in the deposition of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 which were contrary to each other accepted the said evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-7 and convicted the appellant for the said offence. 12. It was further submitted that the Trial Court without assigning any reason convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO, Act and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. The Learned Advocate for the appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court cited in the case of Md. Faizan Ahmad @ Kalu vs. State of Bihar, 2013 (2) SCC 131 and Sahadevan and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 (6) SCC 403 . 14. The Learned Advocate for the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2020. 15. Faizan Ahmad @ Kalu vs. State of Bihar, 2013 (2) SCC 131 and Sahadevan and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 (6) SCC 403 . 14. The Learned Advocate for the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2020. 15. The Learned Advocate for the State at the outset relied upon the provision under Section 29 and Section 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. She also referred to paragraph 12 of the judgment and order passed in Crl. Appeal (J) No. 30 of 2018 which is replicated as follows: “12. Upon meticulous reading of Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, according to us, prosecution will commence the trial with an additional advantage that there will be presumption of guilt against the accused person, but, in our considered view, such presumption cannot form the basis of conviction, it that be so, it would offend Article 20 (3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Perhaps, it is not the object of the legislature to incorporate Sections 29 and 30 under the POCSO Act. As we have said in the first part of this paragraph the prosecution will commence trial with an additional advantage of presumption against the accused but, prosecution is legally bound to establish foundational facts which sets the prosecution case in motion. If the prosecution succeeds to establish the foundational facts, then, it will be the obligation of the accused to prove his innocence, but, standard of proof again will be on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we shall proceed to decide as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish the foundational facts of the instant case. Foundational facts in POCSO Act include: (i) the proof that the victim is a child. (ii) that alleged incident has taken place. (iii) that the accused has committee the offence. (iv) whenever physical injury is caused, to establish it with supporting medical evidence.” 16. The Learned Advocate for the State contended that in order to prove the commission of an offence under the POCSO Act the foundational facts as delineated in the aforesaid judgment (supra) indubitably the victim girl in the instant appeal had been a minor. (iv) whenever physical injury is caused, to establish it with supporting medical evidence.” 16. The Learned Advocate for the State contended that in order to prove the commission of an offence under the POCSO Act the foundational facts as delineated in the aforesaid judgment (supra) indubitably the victim girl in the instant appeal had been a minor. The alleged incident in view of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses stated an incident to have occurred inside a bus where admittedly the accused persons as well as the victim girl alongwith the other girls as named in the complaint were present. In spite of minor contradictions the offensive criminal acts on the part of the accused persons had not been denied. The evidence of the victim as well as the other girls allegedly sexually harassed by the accused persons were not shaken in the cross-examination. There had been lapses on the part of the investigating officer, however, such lapses cannot frustrate the prosecution case where minor girls had been harassed sexually to their detriment. The girls were students of different classes belonging to different residential areas and they would not be affected or influenced by the enmity prevalent between the family of the victim girl and the appellant. Therefore the question of false implication by each and every girl including the victim, who had deposed before the Court, did not arise. Moreover, the family feud which existed between the victim girl and family of the appellant had not been specifically described with regard to the time as to whether it subsisted prior to the occurrence of the incident or to have developed at a later stage after the incident had occurred. The accused persons no doubt had committed offence punishable under the Sections charged against them. In the instant case since physical injury was not caused, supporting medical evidence was not required to establish the same and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 17. The circumspection of the prosecution witnesses reveals PW-1 the victim to have reiterated the statement of the complaint. In her cross-examination PW-1 stated that “XY” PW-3, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-2 to be her friends. “XY” PW-6, PW-7 were the resident of Basadeck at a distance of 2 KMs from her village where she along with PW-3 and PW-2 resided in Milan Gram. In her cross-examination PW-1 stated that “XY” PW-3, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-2 to be her friends. “XY” PW-6, PW-7 were the resident of Basadeck at a distance of 2 KMs from her village where she along with PW-3 and PW-2 resided in Milan Gram. PW-1 further stated there was no general public in the bus apart from bus conductor, driver and school students. 18. The evidence of PW-2 corroborated the act of the appellant and the other convict Hari Prashand Biswas with that of PW-1. Both the convicts teased them and the appellant had touched the private part of her friend who removed his hand and went towards the front side of the bus. She further stated that the convict Hari Prashad touched her shoulder and she had removed his hand before she got down from the bus. During her cross examination PW-2 stated that it was a school bus that they boarded and there was no other passenger in the bus. The driver and conductor were reported of the incident who did not take any steps against the convicts. 19. PW-3 in essence and substance corroborated the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 with minor deviation. During her cross-examination she stated that it was true that the incident occurred inside the bus. She further stated that there were 2-3 common passengers besides the students in the bus, however, did not name them. 20. PW-6 though declared hostile by the prosecution on being cross examined by the prosecution stated that they availed the STS bus at 3.00 pm. She further stated that the bus was plying in the route of Sitanagar and Hati level, which they availed. PW-6 stated to the police that on 04.11.2013 she boarded that bus for returning home. PW-3 “XY”, PW-2, PW-1 and PW-7 were known to her. Those students were in the same bus. She could not state whether two guys boarded the bus or not. She stated to the police that Sameer Mondal and Hari Prasad Biswas boarded that bus on that day. She stated to the police that Sameer Mondal and Hari Prasad Biswas were teasing the girls after boarding the bus. She could not state whether they uttered abusive language to PW-3 “XY”, PW-2, PW-1 and PW-7 or not. Sameer Mondal and Hari Prasad Biswas were known to her as they were her neighbours. 21. She stated to the police that Sameer Mondal and Hari Prasad Biswas were teasing the girls after boarding the bus. She could not state whether they uttered abusive language to PW-3 “XY”, PW-2, PW-1 and PW-7 or not. Sameer Mondal and Hari Prasad Biswas were known to her as they were her neighbours. 21. During her cross examination she stated it was true that on 04.11.2013, she went to the school and returned to her house after school hours by bus. She could not state whether Sameer Mondal teased the girls of that bus or not. Sameer Mondal and Hari Prasad Biswas had not touched her body. In the said bus there were other students and general public and there was no clamour, hue and cry. 22. PW-7 in her deposition stated that on 04.11.2013 on her way back home, PW-3 called her and told that Sameer liked her. Thereafter Sameer arrived at that place and placed his hand on her back. Sameer was then under the influence of liquor. PW-7 tried to escape but Sameer did not allow her to go. Sameer also entered into the bus and thereafter passed some silly comments aiming towards her in Bengali language. Thereafter Sameer in Hindi disclosed his intention to marry her. When her bus stop arrived, she got down from the bus and went to her house. Sameer also teased other girl students who were travelling by bus. During her cross examination PW-7 stated that PW-1 was not known to her. PW-3 was known to her as she was her classmate. Their School was over at about 2.30 pm on that date. The bus arrived at 2.45 pm. It took five minutes to cover the distance of the bus stop from Laxmipur School. They went to the bus stand by walking. At the bus stand there were other students. Sameer blocked her road by standing in front of her. She failed to raise hue and cry as she became frightened. There were students of senior classes at the bus stop. She was standing inside the bus at the backside. PW-3 was standing at the front side of the bus. There was gathering/rush inside the bus. There were driver and conductor inside the bus. She complained to the conductor who ignored them. 23. There were students of senior classes at the bus stop. She was standing inside the bus at the backside. PW-3 was standing at the front side of the bus. There was gathering/rush inside the bus. There were driver and conductor inside the bus. She complained to the conductor who ignored them. 23. PW-8 in her cross examination stated as per verbal direction of the SHO she recorded the statement of the victim girl. The PO was inside the moving bus which was commuting from Laxmipur to Milangram. She had not tried to ascertain the number of the bus. She did not prepare any sketch map. She did not try to ascertain whether at the particular time any bus commuted from Laxmipur to Milangram or not. She also did not find out as to who were the driver and conductor of the bus. She had not tried to ascertain how many passengers were travelling inside the bus. There was no specific reason for examining the driver and conductor of the bus. She did not assign any reason for non-examination of other students of the class of the victim girl. She reported the said incident to the principal of the school. She did not file any document in this respect. 24. DW-1 Kalpana Mondal in her deposition stated the relation between PW-1’s family and Sameer Mondal family was not cordial. She boarded the bus plying from Diglipur to Hathi level. She was supposed to reach Milan Gram which fell on the way. PW-1 also boarded the bus. Hari Prasad and Sameer boarded the bus from Laxmipur. She was sitting at the back seat of the bus. There was an altercation in between PW-1 and Sameer which went on for 2/3 minutes. She could not say the version of the altercation which discontinued after sometime. Thereafter Hari Prasad, Sameer Mondal and PW-1 deboarded the bus near the house of Sameer Mondal. She could not say what happened thereafter. 25. DW-2 Kattabomman in his deposition stated that he was acquainted with accused Sameer Mondal and Hari Prasad Biswas as they were his co-villagers. On 4.11.2013 he boarded bus from Diglipur to Milangram. He was sitting on the seat allotted for senior citizen which was behind the seat of the conductor. The bus was highly crowded as it was school time. Many students boarded the bus from Laxmipur School. On 4.11.2013 he boarded bus from Diglipur to Milangram. He was sitting on the seat allotted for senior citizen which was behind the seat of the conductor. The bus was highly crowded as it was school time. Many students boarded the bus from Laxmipur School. As the bus was over crowded the conductor deboarded the bus in order to facilitate the students to board the same. Sameer and Hari Prasad handed over their respective bag to him and they stood besides him. He did not find anything unusual during his entire journey on the bus. Sameer Mondal and Hari Prasad Biswas got down along with him from the bus. Next day, he came to learn that a complaint was lodged against Sameer Mondal and Hari Prasad Biswas at the Police Station. He indicated of a prior enmity between the father of Sameer and the father of PW-1 which existed on the issue chicken and ducks. 26. There had been severe lapses on the part of the prosecution to ascertain the nature of the bus as to whether it was a school bus exclusively used for the purpose of commuting school students or a commercial bus boarded by both the school students and the general public. The bus driver and the conductor were not examined. However, the lapses on the part of the investigating officer in presence of credible trustworthy evidence shall not affect the crux of the prosecution case. With lapse of time from the date of the incident and the date of deposition before the Court, human brain tends to forget the accurate sequence of the incidents. The defence case is primarily based on the acrimony alleged to have been existed between the victim girl and the appellant which has no bearing or consequential effect on the testimony of other girls who also had been victimised and sexually harassed by the convicts in one way or other as described in their depositions. Apart from the evidence of PW-1 the other victim girls did not cite any incident whereby they had any kind of grudge or animosity against the convicts to falsely inculpate them in a criminal case. Apart from the evidence of PW-1 the other victim girls did not cite any incident whereby they had any kind of grudge or animosity against the convicts to falsely inculpate them in a criminal case. It requires a lot of strength in the realm of societal humiliations to disclose certain acts prejudicial to the victim girls and they would generally not falsely narrate certain things to deprecate themselves so that their honour and dignity be ridiculed, insinuated and insulted at the expense of the public at large. The sole testimony of a witness being a victim of sexual offence can be relied upon if the same is found to be credible and trustworthy. In the instant case the evidence of the victim girls is reliable, worthy of credence devoid of mala fide intention to implicate the convicts in a false case at the risk of their own dignity and honour. 27. PW-6 being a neighbour of the appellants was susceptible to be gained over. The contrary and un-corroborative deposition of DW-1 and DW-2 cannot be relied upon. “354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty - Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may be extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.” “7. Sexual assault - Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault. 8. Punishment for sexual assault - Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 28. 8. Punishment for sexual assault - Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 28. The contradictions in the evidence of the girls as stated above did not affect the edifice of the prosecution case where they came forward to secure their personal dignity setting an example for others to follow to raise protest as a matter of right against humiliation and trauma as a consequence of sexual assault. 29. In view of the above discussion and evidence adduced by the prosecution the criminal intent and the actions in furtherance thereto constitute the offence to have been committed under the provisions of 354 IPC and 7 and 8 of POCSO Act as enumerated above. In the opinion of this Court the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts based on the credible testimony of the victim girl and her friends devoid of bias, coercion and any kind of undue influence. 30. Accordingly the instant criminal appeal being CRA No. 1 of 2021 is dismissed. Connected application if there be any also stands disposed of. 31. No order as to costs. 32. Set off is also ordered under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The sentence of fine and default sentence awarded by the trial Court is maintained. Bail bonds have been cancelled and the respondent is directed to take necessary urgent steps to secure the appellant/accused to under go remaining period of the sentence. 33. LCR alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent down at once to the learned Trial Court for necessary action.