JUDGMENT : N.K. CHANDRAVANSHI, J. 1. As we proceed to hear the matter finally with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, IA No. 01/2023, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail stands disposed of. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.3.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (1st Fast Track Special Court), (POCSO ACT), Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) in Special Criminal Case No. 35/2019, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted under Sections 363 and 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Section 06 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced in the following manner: S. No. Conviction under Section Sentence Fine Default 01. 363 IPC RI for 05 years 1,000/- RI for 01 month 02. 376 IPC Imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the reminder of that person’s natural life Rs. 50,000/- RI for 06 months It is pertinent to mention here that the though the appellant has also been convicted under Section 06 of the POCSO Act, but since punishment under Section 376AB of the IPC is greater in degree, therefore, in view of provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the appellant has been convicted only for offence under Section 376AB IPC. Further all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.01.2019, complainant along with his family members had gone to attend a marriage ceremony at Maruti Mangalam Bhavan. Gudiyari, Raipur. At about 10.30 pm, complainant’s four year old daughter (victim) was found missing from the marriage ceremony place. During search, at about 11.20 pm one unknown person came in front of the main gate of the marriage venue in a white Activa, dropped the victim there and fled away from the spot. At that time witnesses Sanjay Sharma and Vikas Joshi were present there. On seeing her, it was found that clothes of the victim was torn, button were broken and there was mud and dirt in her clothes. At that time witnesses Sanjay Sharma and Vikas Joshi were present there. On seeing her, it was found that clothes of the victim was torn, button were broken and there was mud and dirt in her clothes. On being asked, the victim told that the accused/appellant picked her from Maruti Mangalam Bhavan and took her to nearby ground, made her to lie down in front of a big tree, tore her clothes, sexually assaulted her by touching her private parts and also sucked her private parts. Since the victim was under shock, the matter could not be reported to the police. On 16.02.2019 in another marriage ceremony, the accused tried to abduct another small girl, but due to alertness of persons present there, the accused could not succeed. When the complainant came to know about this incident, he along with his other family friends checked the CCTV installed in the Maruti Mangalam Bhawan and on the basis of CCTV footage, they found the presence of the accused/present appellant there. Thereafter on the basis of written complaint of the complainant/father of the victim, FIR has been lodged against the appellant/accused at Police Station Gudiyari. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared, victim/prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Snehlata Sahu (PW-3) who opined probability of sexual assault upon the victim vide (Ex-P/7), the accused was arrested, on the basis of his memorandum statement, two wheeler Activa, one undergarment(chaddi), one diaper were seized, track suit of the appellant was seized from him. After downloaded CCTV footage of Maruti Mangalam Bhawan on 16.02.2019 pendrive (Article- A/8) was seized from Manager Tulsiram Agrawal vide Ex-P/13. Clothes of the victim were also seized vide seizure memo Ex-P/5, test identification parade of the appellant was conducted vide Ex-P/10 and P/14. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 363, 376 and 354B of the IPC and Sections 4 &8 of the POCSO Act against the accused in the Court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) for trial, who conducted trial. 4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 363, 376AB of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, read over and explained to the appellant, who abjured his guilt and entered into defence that he has not committed any offence. 5. 4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 363, 376AB of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, read over and explained to the appellant, who abjured his guilt and entered into defence that he has not committed any offence. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined following 12 witnesses: S. No. Witness No. Name of the witness 01. PW-1 Yukti Sharma @ Cherry - Identification proceedings - Ex-P/10 02. PW-2 Shailesh Sharma - father of victim, written complaint - Ex-P/1 FIR - Ex-P/2 Seizure of clothes of victim - Ex-P/5 Birth Certificate - Article A-1 seized from him vide Ex-P/6 03. PW-3 Dr. Snehlata Singh - examined victim Report Ex-P/7 04. PW-4 Dr. OP Shrivastava - Examined applicant Report Ex-P/11 05. PW-5 Mohit Kukreja - hearsay witness - His uncle told him that one person was trying to take Ruhi next day checked CCTV footage 06. PW-6 Tulsi Ram Agrawal - Manager Maruti Mangalam Bhawan Pendrive Article A seized from him vide Ex-P/13 07. PW-7 Prosecutrix’s uncle - elder brother of victim’s father - he was standing near gate of the venue when the accused dropped the victim identified the accused - Ex-P/14 08. PW-8 Vikas Joshi - friend of victim’s father witness of seizure of birth certificate Ex-P/6 witness of seizure of pendrive Ex-P/13 Test identification Ex-P/14 09. PW-9 Laxman Singh Thakur Sub Inspector seized pen drive Ex-P/13 seized birth certificate Ex-P/6 10. PW-10 Sushanto Banerjee - TI Registered FIR on the basis Ex-P/1 written complaint. Recorded memorandum Ex-P/17 seizure of undergarment and diaper from the spot vide Ex-P/19 11. PW-11 Srijan Sonkar - Naib Tahsildar conducted TI with victim (Ex-P/10), Sanjay and Vikas Joshi (EX-P/14) 12. PW-12 Divya Sharma - SI recorded statement of victim Besides aforesaid ocular evidence, prosecution also exhibited following documents and also exhibited 03 articles: S. No. Exhibits Particulars 01. Ex-P/1 Written complaint - by PW-1 02. Ex-P/2 FIR 03. Ex-P/3 Crime details Form 04. Ex-P/4 Consent Letter - for medical examination of the victim 05. Ex-P/5 Property seizure memo- clothes of the victim 06. Ex-P/6 Property seizure - birth certificate of victim 07. Ex-P/7 Medical examination report of victim 08. Ex-P/8 Counselling report - Bal Kalyan Samiti Raipur 09. Ex-P/9 Statement of victim under 164 Cr.P.C. 10. Ex-P/10 Identification proceedings of the accused by victim 11. Ex-P/11 Medical examination report of accused 12. Ex-P/5 Property seizure memo- clothes of the victim 06. Ex-P/6 Property seizure - birth certificate of victim 07. Ex-P/7 Medical examination report of victim 08. Ex-P/8 Counselling report - Bal Kalyan Samiti Raipur 09. Ex-P/9 Statement of victim under 164 Cr.P.C. 10. Ex-P/10 Identification proceedings of the accused by victim 11. Ex-P/11 Medical examination report of accused 12. Ex-P/12 Notice U/s. 91 Cr.P.C. for CCTV footage 13. Ex-P/13 Property seizure - pen drive 16GB TOSHIBA - CCTV footage of incident of 16.02.2019 14. Ex-P/14 Identification proceedings of accused by Sanjay Sharma (PW-7) and Vikas Joshi (PW-8) 15. Ex-P/15 Memo reg. Medical exam of victim 16. Ex-P/16 Memo reg. Appointment of female officer for recording statement of victim 17. Ex-P/17 Memorandum 18. Ex-P/18 One white color Active CG 04KD 1612 19. Ex-P/19 One meroon color undergarment with tag of Dixcy and one white colour diaper 20. Ex-P/20 Track suit Adidas of accused 21. Ex-P/21 Memo of medical examination of accused 22. Ex-P/22 Arrest/Court surrender memo 23. Ex-P/23 Arrest information 24. Ex-P/24 Memo reg. Recording statement of victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C. 25. Ex-P/25 Memo of SDM reg. Appointing of Executive Magistrate for IT parade 26. Ex-P/26 Memo of Naib Tahsildar reg. Fixation of date and time for TI for accused 27. Ex-P/27 Memo of Jail Superintendent reg. TI for accused 28. Ex-P/28 Memo of CWC reg. Recording statement of victim 29. Ex-P/29 Memo reg. Directing Superintendent of Jail Raipur for identification proceeding of the accused 30 Ex-P/30 Memo to Jail Superintendent reg. Identification proceedings 31. Ex-P/31 Memo reg. Identification proceeding of accused by the prosecutrix 32. Ex-P/32 Memo of Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur 33. Ex-P/33 Certificate U/s 65 B of the Evidence Act 34. Article A1 Birth Certificate of victim 35. Article A8 Pen Drive 36. Article A9 Vehicle registration 6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 21.3.2022, finding evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph, against which, this appeal has been filed. 7. Article A8 Pen Drive 36. Article A9 Vehicle registration 6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 21.3.2022, finding evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph, against which, this appeal has been filed. 7. Shri Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the FIR has been lodged on 25.02.2019 whereas, the alleged incident occurred on 25.01.2019 i.e. after 29 days of the incident, the FIR has been lodged and there was no cogent explanation in respect of delay in lodging the FIR, which creates doubt upon the credibility of the prosecution story. He would further submit that the entire case is based on faulty investigation. The prosecution has tried to base its case on the CCTV footage of the incident occurred on 16.02.2019 but no complaint was made relating the incident occurred on 16.02.2019, therefore, the story narrated by the prosecution does not inspire confidence. The present case is solely based upon circumstantial evidence, i.e. CCTV footage of the incident occurred on 16.02.2019 but present alleged incident was of 25.01.2019, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its case as the CCTV footage does not relates to present crime in question. Even the Investigating Officer (PW-10) has admitted that he has not seized the CCTV footage of 25.01.2019, i.e. date of incident. He would next submit that the prosecution has failed to bring any medical evidence against the appellant as the doctor who examined the victim has not found any injury or mark of any type on the body of the victim on account of the alleged sexual assault. Further alleged seizure of diaper and undergarment of the victim from the place of incident, after one month of the incident, appear to be in fresh condition, therefore, the seizure is doubtful. He would next submit that only at the instance of father of the victim/complainant, the matter was investigated and the appellant has been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion, without any direct and reliable source of evidence. He would next submit that only at the instance of father of the victim/complainant, the matter was investigated and the appellant has been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion, without any direct and reliable source of evidence. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that so far as imposition of punishment is concerned, the learned trial court has erred in awarding the sentence by not considering the fact that the incident occurred on 25.01.2019 whereas amendment of Section 6 of the POCSO Act has commenced on 06.8.2019, therefore his conviction as per the amended provisions of said Act is not sustainable. Thus, the trial Court has committed illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant, hence, he would pray for acquittal of the appellant. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the matters of Gireesan Nair and Others vs. State of Kerala, 2022 Live Law (SC) 955, Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473 . 8. On the other hand, Shri Avinash Singh, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. He would submit that victim (PW-1) and her father/complainant (PW-2) have proved the allegations made in the written complaint as well as in the FIR. Moreover on the date of incident, i.e. 25.01.2019, uncle of victim (PW-7) and his friend Vikas Joshi (PW-8) had seen the present appellant dropping the victim near the marriage place and both of them have identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade (Ex-P/14) conducted on 01.3.2019 by Naib Tahsildar Srijan Sonkar (PW-11). Victim has also identified the appellant in the TI parade vide Ex-P/10. Further, on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex-P/17), victim’s undergarment and diaper were recovered vide Ex-P/19. It is also evident from the CCTV footage (Article A8) of 16.02.2019 , present appellant tried to persuade a girl aged about 8-9 years, in a similar manner as had happened on the date of incident with the victim in the present case, and he fled away when the parents tried to stop him. It is also evident from the CCTV footage (Article A8) of 16.02.2019 , present appellant tried to persuade a girl aged about 8-9 years, in a similar manner as had happened on the date of incident with the victim in the present case, and he fled away when the parents tried to stop him. Thus, the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, conviction of the appellant is well founded and well supported by the evidence leading to the inference that the appellant has committed the aforesaid offence, as such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences in question. He would further submit that apparently the victim was less than 12 years of age on the date of incident and in that view of the matter, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is absolutely justified and it be maintained by dismissing the instant appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. The first question for consideration before this Court would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that on the date of incident, the victim was minor? 11. When a person is charged for the offence punishable under the POCSO Act, or for rape punishable in the Indian Penal Code, the age of the victim is significant and essential ingredients to prove such charge and the gravity of the offence gets changed when the child is below 18 years, 12 years and more than 18 years. Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act defines the “child” which means any person below the age of eighteen years. In the present case, father of the victim (PW-2) has deposed that date of birth of his child (victim) is 28.10.2014 and he has submitted the birth certificate of the victim, issued by Nagar Nigam, Raipur before the Police, which is marked as Article-A/1, which was seized from him vide seizure memo Ex-P/6 and the same has been proved by Sub Inspector LS Thakur (PW-9) and witnessed by Vikas Joshi(PW-8). During deposition, the minor victim herself has stated her age as 04 years. Even elder brother of victim’s father Sanjay Sharma (PW-4) has also deposed that age of his younger brother’s daughter(victim) is about 04 years at the time of the incident. Dr. During deposition, the minor victim herself has stated her age as 04 years. Even elder brother of victim’s father Sanjay Sharma (PW-4) has also deposed that age of his younger brother’s daughter(victim) is about 04 years at the time of the incident. Dr. (Ku.) Snehlata Sahu (PW-3), who examined the victim, in her report (Ex-P/7) has mentioned the age of the victim as 04 years. The statement of the father of the victim, victim herself, uncle of the victim, birth certificate (Article A/1) and medical report of the doctor (Ex-P/7) and other facts, as has been mentioned above in respect of age of the victim, i.e. 04 years at the time of the incident, has not been challenged by the appellant/accused, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the date of birth of the victim, as 28.10.2014 hence, the trial Court has rightly held that the date of birth of the victim is 28.10.2014 and on the date of incident, she was minor and her age was 04 years 02 months and 28 days. 12. The next question for consideration before us is whether the appellant has abducted and committed rape on minor victim? 13. Victim (PW-1), who was minor, aged about 04 years on the date of incident, was examined before the trial Court, wherein, she has clearly stated that on the date of incident, she along with her parents, elder brother and sister went to attend a marriage party. In the party when she was roaming along with her sister Charvi near stage, her sister Charvi told her to see the Maggi stall, thereafter they went to pasta stall, but they did not get pasta, thereafter they went near paneer chilli stall. The victim deposed that one bad uncle came there and told her that he will take her to her father. Thereafter he made her to sit in white Activa and took her near a tree. There he tore her clothes, opened his clothes and put his private part in her mouth. She also deposed that the bad uncle removed her diaper, hair pin and her pants and thrown it away. Then she deposed that the bad uncle urinated on her neck. Even she identified the accused present in the court and told that the accused present in the Court is that bad uncle who acted upon her on the date of incident. Then she deposed that the bad uncle urinated on her neck. Even she identified the accused present in the court and told that the accused present in the Court is that bad uncle who acted upon her on the date of incident. In the cross examination also, she reiterated her above statement and nothing significant was elicited in favour of the accused. Even in the cross-examination, the victim has deposed that she identified the accused uncle after seeing him in the CCTV footage shown by her father before lodging the complaint. Further she deposed that she identified the accused in the Jail by pointing her finger towards him. The victim remained unrebutted in her-cross examination and was found fully reliable about the incident. 14. Father of the victim (PW-2) also deposed on the same footing as deposed by the victim herself about the incident. He deposed that on 25.01.2019 he along with his family members went to Maruti Mangalam Bhavan for attending marriage ceremony, at about 10.30 pm, suddenly his daughter (victim) was found missing from the marriage venue and they are all started searching her. During search, at about 11.20 pm one unknown person came in front of the main gate of the marriage place in a white Activa, dropped the victim there and fled away from the spot. This was witnessed by his elder brother Sanjay Sharma and Vikas Joshi, who were present there. When they shouted at him, the person who came in Activa fled away towards Shrinagar Mohalla. At that that time his elder brother Sanjay Sharma and Vikas Joshi were standing near the main gate. He would further deposed that on hearing his brother’s voice, he came out and saw his brother carrying the victim in his lap. He took the victim from his brother and found that victim’s clothes were torn and her underwear and diaper were missing, mud was present on the clothes and on the body of the victim and she was completely wet. He would further deposed that thereafter he immediately took the victim to his house, she was very scared. Initially she was not able to tell anything, but when he asked several times, she told that she and her sister Charvi were standing near food stall, at that time, a bad uncle came, took her in his lap saying that he would take her to her father. Initially she was not able to tell anything, but when he asked several times, she told that she and her sister Charvi were standing near food stall, at that time, a bad uncle came, took her in his lap saying that he would take her to her father. The victim also told him that the bad uncle took her to nearby big tree, tore her clothes, removed her pin, he put his urinating organ in her mouth and also urinated upon her. He further deposed that since the victim could not tell anything much about the bad uncle and they also did not know the identity of the person, hence, they kept searching about that person. On 16.02.2019 one more marriage ceremony was going on in the Maruti Mangalam Bhawan, they came to know that a similar incident had happened like the incident happened to his daughter. One person was taking a small girl and when uncle of the girl saw them, he left the girl and fled away from the spot. Next day on 17.02.2019 when they saw the CCTV footage, his brother Sanjay Sharma and Vikas Joshi recognised the person by whom this incident was done to his daughter. After enquiry it was found that the person doing this kind of molestation with the girls is Santosh Tiwari/appellant who is the resident of Shivanand Nagar. Thereafter on 25.02.2019 he filed a written complaint in Police station Gudiyari regarding the incident happened to his daughter, which is marked as Ex-P/1. Based on the written complaint, the police registered FIR (Ex-P/2). In cross- examination father of the victim (PW-2) stated that he did not call the police patrolling to inform about the missing of his daughter and he did not report about the incident on the same day. He also stated that on the date of incident he did not see the accused and in between 25.01.2019 to 25.02.2019, he did not report the police regarding the incident happened with the victim. This witness denied the suggestion that they themselves caught the accused and presented before the police and thereafter wrong FIR has been lodged. 15. Dr. (Ku.) Snehlata Singh (PW-3) who examined the victim on 26.02.2019 deposed that on physical examination of the victim, she was found no mark of injury on the body of the victim. This witness denied the suggestion that they themselves caught the accused and presented before the police and thereafter wrong FIR has been lodged. 15. Dr. (Ku.) Snehlata Singh (PW-3) who examined the victim on 26.02.2019 deposed that on physical examination of the victim, she was found no mark of injury on the body of the victim. She also deposed that according to the victim’s father, the incident happened one month before on 25.01.2019 at about 10.30 pm. She also deposed that on genital examination of the victim, she found no injury marks and she opined that there may be a possibility of sexual assault with her. She gave her report vide Ex-P/7. 16. Uncle of the victim (elder brother of victim’s father) (PW-7) has supported the version of the victim as well as the version of father of the victim in respect of crime in question. He would depose that on the date of incident i.e. on 25.01.2019, he did not know the accused. The victim is daughter of his younger brother, who was about 04 years old at the time of the incident. On 25.01.2019 he along with his family had gone to Maruti Mangalam for attending a marriage ceremony. Party was going on in the lawn, due to sudden rain there was a stampede like situation. They were all looking at their children of their family in the crowd, where his younger brother’s daughter was not found. They searched her outside and inside the marriage place, but could not find her. They searched the victim in and around the wedding venue for about one hour, but she was not found. He deposed that when he and his brother’s friend Vikas Joshi were standing outside gate of the wedding venue, they saw a white coloured Active about 30-40 feet away from the gate and one person dropped the victim and fled away from there. At that time, they did not know about the accused. He deposed that he along with Vikas Joshi went towards the victim and saw that her clothes were torn, buttons were broken and there was mud on her body and her undergarment was missing from her body. Then they took the victim to their house from there. Thereafter they kept searching for the person who committed the incident. He deposed that he along with Vikas Joshi went towards the victim and saw that her clothes were torn, buttons were broken and there was mud on her body and her undergarment was missing from her body. Then they took the victim to their house from there. Thereafter they kept searching for the person who committed the incident. To find him, they kept searching nearby wedding places and on 16.02.2019 they got a news that a person was trying to kidnap a girl and on 17.02.2019, they went there to check CCTV footage, he and Vikas Joshi recognised the accused as the same person who came in the white activa and dropped the victim. He further deposed that they informed the police against the accused, police came there and thereafter his brother lodged report against the accused. This witness had also identified the accused in the jail, vide Ex-P/14. 17. Vikas Joshi (PW-8) is friend of victim’s father, who was present at the wedding venue at the time of the incident along with brother of victim’s father (PW-7). He has fully supported the statement of PW-7. This witness has also deposed that the appellant was identified vide Ex-P/14 in jail, he has attested his signature in aforesaid document. Both of them have denied that they have not seen dropping the victim by the appellant as there was darkness. They have also denied that seeing the appellant they did not cry. The above statement of these witnesses is corroborated by the statement of Mohit Kukareja (PW-6). Mohit Kukareja also deposed in similar line in his deposition about the incident happened on 16.02.2019. 18. Sushanto Banerjee (PW-10) was the investigating officer in the case. He deposed that on 25.02.2019 victim’s father lodged a complaint against the accused which is marked as Ex-P/1 and on the basis of it, he registered FIR (Ex-P/2). He stated that on 26.02.2019 he visited the place of incident and prepared spot map marked as Ex-P/3. Memorandum of the accused was recorded vide Ex-P/17 and on the basis of the memorandum of the accused, at his instance, white Activa used for commission of offence has been seized (Ex-P/18) and at the instance of the accused meroon color undergarment and one diaper were recovered (Ex-P/19) from the place of incident. 19. Memorandum of the accused was recorded vide Ex-P/17 and on the basis of the memorandum of the accused, at his instance, white Activa used for commission of offence has been seized (Ex-P/18) and at the instance of the accused meroon color undergarment and one diaper were recovered (Ex-P/19) from the place of incident. 19. Test identification parade was conducted by Naib Tahsildar (PW-11), in which the the victim identified the appellant vide Ex-P/10. The appellant was also identified by Vikas Joshi and elder brother of victim’s father in jail vide Ex-P/14. They identified the appellant as the person who abducted the victim and committed the crime with her. 20. Although in the instant case, FIR was not lodged on 25.01.2019 and it was lodged after about one month of the incident, but in this regard it is evident from the deposition of the father of the victim (PW-2) and elder brother of father of the victim (PW-7) that as the appellant fled away from the spot on the day of the incident, they could not know more about him, hence, at that time, the report was not lodged by the family members of the victim. Neither the victim could tell much about the miscreant nor they could know more about that person, therefore, at that time, report was not lodged. However, subsequently on 16.02.2019 when the appellant repeated such conduct, his activity was recorded in CCTV camera and on being seen that CCTV footage, which was seized from Manager of wedding avenue, Tulsiram Agrawal (PW-6), in pendrive (Article A-8), Sanjay Sharma (PW-7) and Vikas Joshi (PW-8) identified the appellant as the same person to whom they had seen on the date of incident i.e. on 25.01.2019 and thereafter present FIR was lodged by father of the victim. In this circumstance, lodging of FIR after one month of the incident is not found to be fatal to the trustworthiness of the case of the prosecution. 21. In the instant case, the victim and Sanjay Sharma (PW-7), elder brother of father of the victim, have admitted in the cross-examination that on 17.02.2019 they had seen the CCTV footage of Maruti Mangalam Bhawan about the incident of 16.02.2019, in which they had seen the appellant and his Activa in those CCTV footage. 21. In the instant case, the victim and Sanjay Sharma (PW-7), elder brother of father of the victim, have admitted in the cross-examination that on 17.02.2019 they had seen the CCTV footage of Maruti Mangalam Bhawan about the incident of 16.02.2019, in which they had seen the appellant and his Activa in those CCTV footage. Sanjay Sharma (PW-7) has also stated that apart from them his brother (PW-2) and Vikas Joshi had also seen those CCTV footage. Although their such admission demonstrate that prior to the TI parade held vide Ex-P/10 and P/14, they had seen the appellant, but nothing has been brought in their cross-examination that the appellant was shown to them by the police, rather aforesaid facts show that out of their curiosity, when they came to the know about the similar incident happened on 16.02.2019 in Maruti Mangalam Bhawan, they themselves checked the CCTV footage of said Bhawan, therefore, in these circumstances, test identification parade conducted vide Ex-P/10 & P/14 cannot held to be vitiated. Therefore, case law cited by learned counsel for the appellant Gireeshan Nair (supra) is not helpful to the appellant in the instant case. 22. In the instant case, on the date of incident, i.e. on 25.01.2019, the appellant was not caught or identified rather on 16.02.2019 the appellant again tried to abduct a minor girl, but he could not succeed as the persons present there had seen him, therefore, he fled away from the spot, which has been stated by Mohit Kukreja (PW-5) in his deposition. This witness has admitted that on 16.02.2019 though he had not seen the incident with his own eyes, but on the next day he had seen the incident in the CCTV footage. 23. Tulsidhar Agrawal (PW-6), Manager of Maruti Mangalam Bhavan, has deposed that on being noticed (Ex-P/12) by the Police, he has provided visuals of CCTV footage in a pendrive (Article A-8) and that pendrive was seized vide Ex-P/13. This fact has been well supported by SI Lakshman Singh Thakur (PW-9), who has seized the pendrive vide seizure memo EX-P/13. This fact has also been supported by Vikas Joshi. In cross-examination Tulsiram Agrawal (PW-6) has admitted that he has not downloaded the visuals of CCTV footage from the DVR rather his employees downloaded the footage in the pendrive. 24. This fact has been well supported by SI Lakshman Singh Thakur (PW-9), who has seized the pendrive vide seizure memo EX-P/13. This fact has also been supported by Vikas Joshi. In cross-examination Tulsiram Agrawal (PW-6) has admitted that he has not downloaded the visuals of CCTV footage from the DVR rather his employees downloaded the footage in the pendrive. 24. Investigating officer Suyshanto Banerjee (PW-10) has proved the fact that visuals of CCTV footage was downloaded from the DVR installed in Maruti Mangalam Bhawan by Jitendra Agrawal on 19.02.2019 and in this regard Jitendra Agrawal had given certificate vide Ex-P/33 in compliance of provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Although statement of Jitendra Agrawal has not been recorded by the prosecution, but aforesaid statement of Sushanto Banerjee (PW-10) is well supported by Ex-P/33. In Ex-P/33, it has been clearly noted that in the said pen drive (Article A/8) visuals of which camera has been downloaded from the DVR of CCTV installed in Mangalam Bhawan. Thus, requirement of Section 65B of the Evidence Act has been proved by the prosecution in the instant case. Hence, the case law cited by the appellant Anwar PV (supra) is distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 25. Deposition of the investigating officer Sushanto Banerjee (PW-10) shows that during the course of the trial, visuals of pendrive was watched in computer of the Court in front of both the parties, witnesses Sushanto Banerjee, mother and wife of the appellant [as has been noted by the trial Court in para 57 of the deposition of PW-10], which contain footage of camera 2, 3, 6, 12, 15 and 16 installed in the marriage venue. It has also been pointed out by the Court that on those visuals it was seen that the appellant had come in a scooty on 16.02.2019 in Maruti Mangalam Bhawan, picked a girl, took her on his scooty and when he started the scooty, relatives of the said girl reached near the scooty, thereafter at 22.44.05 hours the appellant put down the girl and fled from the spot. Thus, this fact also corroborated the deposition of the father of the victim (PW-2), his elder brother (PW-7) and Vikas Joshi (PW-8) that on 16.02.2019 when the appellant was doing similar act, his activity was recorded in the CCTV camera and thereafter they also watched CCTV footage of 16.02.2019, in which they identified the appellant and the victim also identified him. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant drawn our attention to some of the omissions and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, but we find that those omissions and contradictions are very much trivial. Further nothing has been brought in the cross-examination of the substantive witnesses to show that they have any interest/ animosity to implicate the appellant in such type of heinous offence. Therefore, statements of aforesaid witnesses are found to be reliable. 27. In the instant case, medical evidence does not corroborate any sexual assault with the victim because the report was lodged after one month of the incident and thereafter the victim was medically examined, therefore, finding of no any injuries over the body of the victim cannot be held to be unnatural. It is also pertinent to mention here that victim has not stated any such violent act of the appellant, that would cause her grievous injuries which remain for one month after the incident. 28. The victim has stated in her deposition that the appellant had tore her clothes and put his urinal organ in her mouth and he also urinated on her neck, being minor girl, aged about 04 years, she has stated that she could not remember what other act has been done by the appellant. 29. To prove the offence of rape or penetrative sexual assault, necessary ingredients enumerated under Section 375 IPC and Section 3 of the POCSO Act almost enumerates similar provisions, which reads as under: “375. Rape - A man is said to commit “rape” if he: (a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person. (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person. (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person. (c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person. (d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, Section 3 of the POCSO Act. 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. (b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person. (c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person. (d) he applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person. 30. Since the minor victim, aged about 04 years has clearly stated in her deposition that the appellant had not only tore her clothes, removed her undergarment and diaper etc., but he also put his urinal organ in her mouth. This fact clearly proves that act of the rape has been committed by the appellant in view of provisions of Section 375(a) of IPC and Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act. Hence, offence of rape against the appellant has clearly been proved and since he has taken the victim to a lonely place from the marriage venue, therefore, offence under Section 363 IPC has also been proved. Hence, offence of rape against the appellant has clearly been proved and since he has taken the victim to a lonely place from the marriage venue, therefore, offence under Section 363 IPC has also been proved. Since the victim was below the age of 12 years on the date of incident, hence, offence under Section 376AB and Section 6 of the POCSO Act is fully proved against the appellant. 31. Punishment under Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act has been enhanced vide amendment in The protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019, which was published in Gazette of India on 06th August, 2019 and the date of the incident in the instant case is 25.01.2019, thus, enhancement of the punishment incorporated under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is subsequent to the date of incident in the instant case. But the appellant has not been sentenced under Section 6 of the POCSO Act rather he has been sentenced under Section 376 AB of the IPC, in which enhanced punishment has been incorporated vide Gazette of India notification dated 11th August 2018 i.e. prior to the date of incident of the instant case. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has wrongly been sentenced under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It is also noteworthy to mention here that the appellant has not been sentenced by the Special Court for the offence under 6 of the POCSO Act in view of the provision of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, hence, on this count also submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable. 32. Vide impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted by the trial Court for imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for reminder of his natural life. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that instant punishment is too harsh particularly considering the young age of the appellant, i.e. 30 years, who is also a married person, hence, we are of the view that ends of justice would be served if we modify the sentence imposed against the appellant for the offence under Section 376AB IPC to RI for 20 years. 33. 33. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363 and 376AB IPC are affirmed and we also affirm his sentence under Section 363 IPC, but his sentence under Section 376 AB is modified to the extent that instead of imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for reminder of his natural life, he is sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 06 months. 34. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.