JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, J. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 81/2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 (henceforth “POCSO Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/-; and rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulations, respectively. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.09.2020, the victim boy and his brother went to play near their house- Junadih Badi. The mother of victim boy was at her home. At about 2:00 hours, the brother of victim came there and informed his mother that the accused/appellant has taken the victim to his house by pressing his mouth and the victim has not returned. Thereafter, the mother of the victim went the house of the accused/appellant and saw that the door was closed from inside, then she called the appellant to leave the victim. Then the accused/appellant has opened the door, the victim came out from his house, at that time, the victim was not wearing his undergarments. When the mother asked him about the same, he told that the accused/appellant has committed unnatural act with him and he was in pain. Thereafter, FIR (Ex.P-4) was lodged by mother of the victim (PW-2) at Police Station – Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa on 15.09.2020. The appellant has been arrested on 16.9.2020 vide Arrest Memo (Ex. P-9). After investigation, final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed against the appellant for the aforesaid offences in the Court of Special Judge (Constituted under POCSO Act), Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 3. During investigation, Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex. P/5C) with respect to the victim has been seized and seizure memo (Ex. P/4) was prepared as well as school certificate of class 8th of the appellant was also seized and seizure memo (Ex. P/8) was prepared. The victim boy was medically examined by Dr. Mahendra Soni (PW-4) vide Ex. P-2 and the accused was also medically examined vide Ex. P-1. P/4) was prepared as well as school certificate of class 8th of the appellant was also seized and seizure memo (Ex. P/8) was prepared. The victim boy was medically examined by Dr. Mahendra Soni (PW-4) vide Ex. P-2 and the accused was also medically examined vide Ex. P-1. The statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Spot map (Ex. P-13) was prepared by Patwari (PW-9). Statements of the other witnesses were also recorded. 4. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 6. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment dated 15.09.2021 recorded a finding that it is the appellant who has committed the unnatural sexual harassment with the victim boy and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment against which, instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred. 7. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned Advocate appears as Amicus Curiae vehemently argued that there are so many contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, as such, their statements do not inspire confidence of this Court so as to convict the accused/appellant. He also submits that there was previous enmity between the family of victim and the family of appellant and, therefore, appellant has been roped in the false case. He submits that medical evidence also does not corroborate with the allegation of unnatural act committed by the appellant. He further submits that in this case, the age of the victim boy has not been duly proved by the prosecution, as there is no authentic document or evidence laid by the prosecution to prove the actual age of the victim boy, as such, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The trial Court, without there being any cogent evidence against the appellant, has convicted and sentenced him, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted in the present case. The trial Court, without there being any cogent evidence against the appellant, has convicted and sentenced him, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted in the present case. In support of his contentions, he relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunil v. State of Haryana { (2010) 1 SCC 742 , paragraph 19} and Alamelu & Another v. State represented by Inspector of Police { (2011) 2 SCC 385 , paragraph 42}. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submits that on the date of incident the victim had gone to his neighbourhood alongwith his younger brother. At around 2:00 p.m., the brother of the victim/boy came to his house and told his mother Punita @ Purnima(PW-2) that the present appellant forcefully took his brother and when she went to the house of the appellant where the door of his house was closed from inside and upon being asked to open the door, the door was opened and the victim/boy was came out and informed his mother that the accused/appellant committed sexual harassment with the victim/boy and the sexual organ of the victim/boy is paining. The said fact was stated by the mother of the victim before the trial Court and her statement were not rebutted by the prosecution. She also submits that at the time of incident, the victim/boy was below the age of 12 years and the same is fortified by the School Admission Register i.e. Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex. P-5C) wherein the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 01.11.2010, therefore, there is no dispute regarding the age of the victim/boy as to be minor. She again submits that after lodging of FIR, the investigation was carried out and the victim/boy and the accused/appellant were medically examined by the Dr. Mahendra Soni (PW-4) who has submitted his report vide Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-1, respectively, which leads to the only conclusion that the accused/appellant has committed the aforesaid offence. She lastly submits that the allegation which has been levelled against the appellant is very serious in nature like unnatural sexual harassment of a child which prima facie a heinous crime, as such the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced, as mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. She lastly submits that the allegation which has been levelled against the appellant is very serious in nature like unnatural sexual harassment of a child which prima facie a heinous crime, as such the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced, as mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. Victim boy (PW-1), in his statement recorded before the learned trial courts has stated that on the date of incident he was playing with his friends in the afternoon, at that time when he went for nature’s call the appellant came there and gagged his mouth and took him at his house and closed the door from inside and committed unnatural sexual act with him, due to which, he was screaming and upon listening the same, his younger brother came and went to his home and narrated the entire incident to her mother, thereafter his mother came there and shouted on the accused to leave her son who opened the door and put him out. The victim stated that his underwear pants and slippers were left in the house of the accused who threw it out from the window. 12. Brother of victim namely Raj (PW-7) has deposed before the trial Court that on the date of incident his brother was playing with his friends in the afternoon, at that time when his brother went for nature’s call, the appellant came there and gagged his mouth and took him in his house and closed the door from inside and committed unnatural sexual act with him, due to which, his brother/victim boy was screaming and upon listening the same, he went to his home and narrated entire incident to her mother, thereafter, mother came there and scolded the accused to leave her son. 13. 13. The mother of the victim/boy Punita @ Purnima (PW-2) in her statement recorded before the trial Court has stated that on the date of incident, her son, victim/boy was playing at neighborhood alongwith his younger brother, thereafter the brother of the victim/boy came to his house and told her that the present appellant forcefully took his brother and when she went to the house of the appellant, where the door of his house was closed from inside and upon being asked to open the door, the door was opened and the victim/boy came in a naked condition and informed her that the accused/appellant committed sexual harassment with him by inserting his (accused) sexual organ in his anus. Nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to discard her statement and in her cross-examination, her statement remains unshaken. 14. Thus deposition of victim boy (PW-1) has been fully supported by PW-2 & PW-7 i.e. mother and brother of the victim. 15. The learned trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Mahendra Soni (PW-4), who has medically examined the victim/boy as well as examined the accused/appellant vide Ex. P/02 and P/01 respectively, has recorded a finding that appellant has committed unnatural act with the victim body, a lacerated wound was on the outside of the anus. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 16. The next question for consideration would be, whether at the time of incident, the victim/boy was above the age of 12 years or not? For this finding, we have to examine the statement of the School Teacher-Rajesh Kumar Ratre (PW-5), who was posted at the Government Primary School Deveri, Police Station Akaltara, Janjgir-Champa and is the author of the entry of date of birth of the victim/boy. 17. Rajesh Kumar Ratre (PW05), in his statement before the trial Court has stated that on 29.06.2016, he himself had mentioned the date of birth of the victim on Dakhil Kharij Register as 01.11.2010 and the said fact has also not been controverted by the prosecution. Thus, the judgments relied on by the counsel for the appellant are of no use in the facts of the case. 18. Thus, the judgments relied on by the counsel for the appellant are of no use in the facts of the case. 18. A findings has been recorded by the learned trial Court to establish the charges levelled against the accused/ appellant in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under: - Þ¼22½ iksDlks ,DV dh /kkjk 29 ds vuqlkj tgkW fdlh O;fDr dks bl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3] /kkjk 5] /kkjk 7 vkSj /kkjk 9 ds v/khu fdlh vijk/k dks djus ;k nq"isj.k djus ;k mldks djus dk iz;Ru djus ds fy, vfHk;ksftr fd;k x;k gS] ogkW fo'ks"k U;k;ky; rc rd ;g mi/kkjuk djsxk fd ,sls O;fDr us] ;FkkfLFkfr] og vijk/k fd;k gS] nq"izsj.k fd;k gS ;k mldks djus dk iz;Ru fd;k gS tc rd blds fo:+) vijk/k lkfcr ugh dj fn;k tkrk gSA vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls is'k lk{; ls ;g rF; izekf.kr gS fd ihfM+r tks fd 12 o"kZ ds de vk;q dk ckyd gS] dks vfHk;qDr vius ?kj esa ys tkdj ?kj dk njoktk can dj mlds xqnk es viuk fyax Mkydj izos’ku ySfaxd geyk fd;kA bl izdkj vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k ;qfDr;qDr :i ls izekf.kr gS rFkk vfHk;qDr us fof/k ds vuqlkj ifjdfYir mi/kkj.kk dk [kaMu ugh fd;k gS] vr% vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k izekf.kr ik;k tkrk gSAß 19. After due consideration on evidence available on record, we affirm the correctness of the finding recorded in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment of the trial Court, which we have quoted above. In this context, it is necessary to note the definition of “Penetrative Sexual assault” incorporated in Section 3 of the POCSO Act. Clause (a) of Section 3 reads thus: “3 Penetrative Sexual Assault.- A person is said to commit “Penetrative sexual assault” if- (a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or xxx xxx xxx 20. Section 2(a) of the POCSO Act provides that ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’ has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 5 which defines ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’. Clause (m) of Section 5 reads as under: “5. Section 2(a) of the POCSO Act provides that ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’ has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 5 which defines ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’. Clause (m) of Section 5 reads as under: “5. Aggravated penetrative sexual assault – (a) xxx xxx xxx (m) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years; or xxx xxx xxx (u) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and makes the child to strip or parade naked in public, is said to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault.” 21. Considering the finding recorded in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment, obviously in this case, the appellant has committed an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years. 22. Now, this Court has to see whether the trial Court is justified to convict the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 or not. 23. Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, as applicable after its substitution on 16th August, 2019, reads thus: “6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.—(1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person, and shall also be liable to fine, or with death. (2) The fine imposed under Sub-Section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.” 24. On the date of the commission of the offence, rigorous imprisonment for 20 years was the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Therefore, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 has rightly been applied by learned trial Court in this case and the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the act committed by the appellant was not an aggravated penetrative sexual assault as the case of appellant falls under the category of a lesser offence of penetrative sexual assault, which is punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 25. 25. The POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse of various kinds and that is why minimum punishments have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act for various categories of sexual assaults on children. Hence, Section 6 on its plain language, leaves no discretion to the Court and there is no option but to impose the minimum sentence. When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than...”, the Courts cannot reduce the offence and impose a lesser sentence unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser sentence. However, we find no such provision in the POCSO Act. However, looking to the gravity of the offence, there is no question of showing any leniency to the appellant. As the crime committed by him is very gruesome which calls for very stringent punishment. Dr Mahendra Soni (PW-4) in his statement has clearly deposed that injury has been found on the private part of the victim/boy and has clearly opined that the victim has been subjected to sexual assault. The impact of the obnoxious act on the mind of the victim/boy will be life-long. The impact is bound to adversely affect the healthy growth of the victim and there is no dispute that the age of the victim/boy was less than twelve years at the time of the incident. Therefore, we have no option but to affirm the judgment of the trial Court. 26. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal, being devoid of substance, and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 27. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 28. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 29. This Court record appreciation of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned Amicus Curiae in assisting this Court for his efforts for final disposal of the present appeal.