JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, J. 1. Though Cr.A. No.1457/2022 was filed before the learned Single Judge as the jail sentence awarded to the appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan is less than 10 years, however, as the said appellant was also convicted and sentenced alongwith appellant-Karan Ram Chauhan vide the judgment dated 06.08.2022 passed in Special Criminal POCSO Case No. 39/2020 by the Additional Sessions Jude, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act) Ambikapur, District Surguja, these two appeals are being considered and decided by this common judgment. 2. The appellants have preferred these appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment dated 06.08.2022 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan Conviction under Section Term and nature of Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. 5 years rigorous imprisonment Rs.1,000/- 03 months additional rigorous imprisonment 13/14 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 7 years rigorous imprisonment Rs. 4,000/- 06 months additional rigorous imprisonment 67B of the I.T. Act 2000 5 years rigorous imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment Appellant-Karan Ram Chauhan 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. 5 years rigorous imprisonment Rs. 1,000/ 03 months additional rigorous imprisonment 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 20 years rigorous imprisonment Rs. 4,000/- 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently, however, in default of payment of fine, the default jail sentences were directed to run consecutively. 3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on the date of incident i.e. on 20.08.2020, at about 2:30 p.m. while the victim (PW-2) had gone for grazing of her cattle, the appellant-Karan Ram Chauhan committed forceful sexual intercourse with her and the appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan recorded the said offence on his mobile camera and thereafter they went away threatening the victim that if she discloses the incident to anyone, the same video clip would be made viral and she would be done to death. 4. The father (PW-1) of the victim made a written complaint (Exhibit P/1) 24.09.2020 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja wherein he stated that he had three daughter and one son. The victim, being the eldest child, was studying at village Bhatgaon and was residing with her grand parents however, because of lock-down, she was staying with the complainant at village Thakurpur. The victim, being the eldest child, was studying at village Bhatgaon and was residing with her grand parents however, because of lock-down, she was staying with the complainant at village Thakurpur. They had some cattle in their house and the victim used to take them for grazing. On 22.09.2020, one Jaya of village Raghavpuri called the wife of the complainant and showed a video on her mobile in which one boy was committing forceful sexual intercourse with the victim and when the victim was asked about the same, she informed that on 20.08.2020, she had taken her cattle for grazing near Sagaon Jungle at about 2:30 p.m. At about 4 p.m., appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan came alongwith his friend appellant-Karan Ram Chauhan and tied the cattle with a tree and thereafter, Karan Ram Chauhan disrobed the victim and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. When the victim tried to scream, her mouth was gagged. Appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan recorded the incident on a mobile camera and thereafter, they both went away threatening the victim that if she informs about the incident to anyone, she would be done to death. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint, FIR (Exhibit P/2) bearing Crime No. 353/2020 was registered against the appellants at Police Station Dehat (Gandhinagar), District Surguja, for the offences punishable under Sections 376-D, 509(B), 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5g, 6, 13, 14 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 67(B) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000. 6. After investigating the matter, the police submitted the police report alongwith charge-sheet against the appellant/convict under the aforementioned Sections of the IPC, POCSO Act, 2012 and the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambikapur. 7. The said case was tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Court, (POCSO Act) Ambikapur, District Surguja and the case was registered as Special Criminal POCSO Case No. 39/2020. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan on 01.12.2020 and against the appellant-Karan Ram Chauhan on 26.07.2021 under various Sections of the IPC, POCSO Act and the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000. The appellants denied the charges and prayed for trial. 9. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan on 01.12.2020 and against the appellant-Karan Ram Chauhan on 26.07.2021 under various Sections of the IPC, POCSO Act and the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000. The appellants denied the charges and prayed for trial. 9. Amongst others, the prosecution has filed the following documents in support of its case: P/01 Written Complaint by father of the prosecutrix P/02 First Information Report P/02 ‘A’ Counter Nalshi Receipt P/03 Crime Details Form P/04 Property Seizure Memo P/05 Panchnama P/06 Spot Map P/07 Consent Letter of prosecutrix and her mother P/08 Statement of prosecutrix U/s 164 of Cr.P.C. P/09 Statement of Jaya Chauhan P/10 Memo to Head Master for providing of admission-discharge register P/11 Property Seizure Memo P/12 Copy of Admission – Discharge Register P/13 Memo to Tahsildar for Spot Map P/14 Memo to Head Master for true copy of admission – discharge register P/15 Property Seizure Memo P/16 C Copy of Admission – Discharge Register P/17 Memo to F.S.L. for chemical examination of seized articles P/17-A & P/18 Receipt of Exhibits P/19 Medical Examination report of prosecutrix P/20 Application for medical examination of prosecutrix P/21 to 24 Property Seizure Memo P/25 Arrest/Court Surrender Memo P/25 A Information of Arrest P/26 Arrest/Court Surrender Memo P/26 A Information of Arrest P/27 Application for medical examination of accused Karan Ram Chauhan & examination report P/28 Memo to J.M.F.C requestion to record the statement of the prosecutrix U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. P/29 Seized Mobile examination report 10. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses namely: ? PW-01 Ashok Singh : He is the complainant who had made a written complaint and on the basis of which the FIR was lodged. ? PW-02 Victim : She has narrated the entire sequence of incident which occurred and how the accused/appellants committed the crime. ? PW-03 Ku. Jaya Chauhan: She is the aunt of the victim. She was declared hostile as she stated that she had not seen any video on any mobile though she admits that her mobile phone was seized by the police. ? PW-04 Mother of the victim: She stated that her daughter i.e. the victim was aged 13 years. She was called by Ku. She was declared hostile as she stated that she had not seen any video on any mobile though she admits that her mobile phone was seized by the police. ? PW-04 Mother of the victim: She stated that her daughter i.e. the victim was aged 13 years. She was called by Ku. Jaya Chauhan (PW-3) and had shown the video clip on her mobile and that the said video clip was seen by many other persons. The victim did not inform regarding the incident because of the threatening given by the appellants. She had given the consent (Exhibit P/7) to the Doctor for examining her daughter and the Spot Map (Exhibit P/6) and Panchnama (Exhibit P/5) was prepared in her presence. ? PW-05 Shri Amit Sinha: He is the Head Master of the school and had produced the original admission/discharge register where the date of birth of the victim was recorded as 30.11.2008 and stated that the victim had taken admission in Class I on 20.05.2013 and left the school on 30.04.2016 after passing Class III. ? PW-06 Sanjay Thakur: He is the Patwari who had prepared the spot map (Exhibit P/6) and is also witness to Panchnama (Exhibit P/5). ? PW-07 Smt. Aldina Minj: She is the Incharge Head Mistress of a Government School who had brought the original admission/discharge register wherein the date of birth of the appellant-Karan Ram Chauhan was registered as 04.07.2002. He had taken admission in the said school on 01.07.2008 in Class I and after passing Class V, he had left the school. ? PW-08 Ms. Anita Ayam: she is the Sub Inspector at Police Station, Mahila Thana Ambikapur and she had recorded the statement of the victim on 24.09.2019 and thereafter handed the case diary to the then Station House Officer. ? PW-09 Anup Kumar Ekka: He is the Station House Officer who was posted at Police Station Gandhi Nagar at the relevant time. He had sent a memo (Exhibit P/13) to the Tahsildar for directing the Patwari for preparation of Spot Map and had also seized the true copy of the admission/discharge register (Exhibit P/11). He had also sent the seized articles to the FSL, Ambikapur vide memo (Exhibit P/17) and the seized four mobiles were sent for forensic examination to the Assistant Inpector General, Technical Services, Raipur. ? PW-10 Dr. He had also sent the seized articles to the FSL, Ambikapur vide memo (Exhibit P/17) and the seized four mobiles were sent for forensic examination to the Assistant Inpector General, Technical Services, Raipur. ? PW-10 Dr. Alakhnanda Tirki: He is the Doctor posted at District Hospital, Ambikapur who had examined the minor victim and prepared its report (Exhibit P/19). ? PW-11 Rahul Tiwari: He is the Investigating Officer who had investigated the crime. 11. The statement of the accused/appellants under section 313 CrPC was recorded wherein they have denied most of the questions and also expressed their ignorance with regard to some questions. They stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. In support of their case, they got the statement of the victim exhibited as Exhibit D/1. 12. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellants as detailed in paragraph 2 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants/convict. 13. Mr. Nishikant Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan submits that he does not wish to argue the matter on merits, however, so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the sentence awarded to the appellant is too harsh which needs to be suitably modified by this Hon’ble Court. The appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan has already completed more than 3 ½ years of jail sentence and as such, sentencing the appellant with minimum jail sentence would meet the ends of justice. Mr. Nishikant further submits that for the offence under Section 13/14 of the POCSO Act, the appellant has been sentenced to seven years of imprisonment whereas the minimum imprisonment provided is 5 years. 14. Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-Karan Ram Chauhan submits that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on mis-appreciation of evidences and on the basis of a concocted story, the conviction cannot be sustained. The video that has been made the basis for identification of the appellant has not been properly scrutinized and it is not conclusive to hold the appellant guilty of the offence. Most of the witnesses are the interested witness and their evidence ought to have been discarded. Even the FIR has been lodged after a delay of about one month of the alleged incident. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Most of the witnesses are the interested witness and their evidence ought to have been discarded. Even the FIR has been lodged after a delay of about one month of the alleged incident. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent submits that the appellants have committed a heinous crime of rape against a minor girl and thereafter recorded the same on their mobile camera and also have circulated the same. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is based on strong evidence and the same does not warrant any interference. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 17. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the victim was a minor on the date of incident as it has been well established by the statement of the mother (PW-4) and father (PW-1) and also of the victim (PW-2). There is documentary evidence in the form of admission/discharge register which was produced by the witness Amit Sinha (PW-5) who stated that the date of birth recorded in the admission/discharge register was 30.11.2008. The date of birth as stated by the victim as also her mother is 30.10.2008. The father (PW-1) stated that the year of birth of the victim was 2008. Though there is a difference of one month in the date of birth as stated by the victim, mother and her father and as recorded in the admission/discharge register, but that would hardly make any difference. As such, the prosecution has successfully proved that the victim was a minor and below the age of 12 years i.e. 11 years 8 months and 21 days on the date of incident. 18. The statement made by the victim before the Court is of utmost importance. In her statement, the victim (PW-2) has clearly stated that she knew the appellants and she could recall the exact date as she stated that four days after 15th August of 2020, she had gone to Sagaon Jungle for grazing her goats and while she was returning back, the appellants came and the accused-Ram Kumar tied her goats with a tree and the accused-Karan Ram Chauhan pulled her half-pant and undergarment and forcefully committed rape upon the victim. Accused-Ram Kumar Chouhan prepared a video on his mobile phone. This witness further stated that when she tried to scream for help, her mouth was gagged by Karan Ram Chauhan and was threatened that if she states anything about this incident to anyone, she would be killed. Hence, she had not informed anything even to her parents. 19. The father (PW-1) of the victim in his Court statement has deposed that his daughter had informed him that the appellants after commission of the crime, had threatened her that if she discloses the said incident to anyone, she would be killed. He came to know about the incident only after the witness Jaya Chouhan (PW-3) informed him after watching the video clip on mobile. Similarly, the mother (PW-4) of the victim has deposed that she came to know about the incident when Jaya Chouhan called her to her house and showed her a video on a mobile which she saw that the appellant-Karan Ram Chauhan was committing rape upon the victim. 20. The examination report (Exhibit P/29) of the Cyber Forensic Lab, Police Headquarter, Raipur dated 08.12.2021 reveals that from the mobile seized from the accused-Ram Kumar Chouhan, some data was found to be deleted which could not be recovered, however, there were thumbnails (screenshots) of the objectionable video. So far as the mobile seized from the accused Karan Ram Chouhan is concerned, the objectionable video of the victim was found in his mobile which was saved in a separate folder named ‘suspected’. The said objectionable video was also found in the mobile phones seized by the police from Archana Chouhan and Jaya Chouhan (PW-3). A certificate was also given by one Om Prakash, Sub Inspector (Cyber Crime) under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act. 21. Dr. Alakhnanda Tirki (PW-10) had examined the victim and found that the victim was physically and mentally sound. There was no injuries on her body or internal parts, however, the hymen was absent. He had prepared two vaginal slides and after sealing it had handed over to the Constable for chemical examination. Though he had opined that no definite opinion could be given with regard to commission of recent intercourse. There was no injuries on her body or internal parts, however, the hymen was absent. He had prepared two vaginal slides and after sealing it had handed over to the Constable for chemical examination. Though he had opined that no definite opinion could be given with regard to commission of recent intercourse. The incident had taken place on 20.08.2020 and the medical examination was conducted on 24.09.2020 i.e. after about one month and as such, it is not surprising that there could not have been any sign of recent intercourse. 22. Exhibit P/27 is the MLC report of the appellant-Karan Ram Chauhan wherein he has been found to be physically and mentally healthy, secondary sexual characters well developed and was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. 23. In the case of Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573 , the Supreme Court observed and held that that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. 24. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, { (2019) 11 SCC 575 }, it was observed and held that as a general rule, if credible, conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It was further observed and held that sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by Court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. 25. In the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, { (2018) 18 SCC 34 }, the Supreme Court observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It was further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. 26. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the victim. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy. 26. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the victim. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the appellants/convicts relying even upon the sole testimony of the victim can be sustained. 27. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellants are the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court. 28. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellants. 29. Accordingly, Cr.A. No. 1725/2022 filed by the appellant-Karan Ram Chauhan, being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 30. So far as the case of the appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan is concerned, as the learned trial Court has awarded seven years rigorous jail sentence for the offnece under Section 13/14 of the POCSO Act, the same appears to be on the higher side. 31. Section 13 and 14 of the POCSO Act reads as under: “13. Use of child for pornographic purposes. - Whoever, uses a child in any form of media (including programme or advertisement telecast by television channels or internet or any other electronic form or printed form, whether or not such programme or advertisement is intended for personal use or for distribution), for the purposes of sexual gratification, which includes- (a) representation of the sexual organs of a child; (b) usage of a child engaged in real or simulated sexual acts (with or without penetration); (c) the indecent or obscene representation of a child, shall be guilty of the offence of using a child for pornographic purposes. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, the expression ''use a child'' shall include involving a child through any medium like print, electronic, computer or any other technology for preparation, production, offering, transmitting, publishing, facilitation and distribution of the pornographic material. 14. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, the expression ''use a child'' shall include involving a child through any medium like print, electronic, computer or any other technology for preparation, production, offering, transmitting, publishing, facilitation and distribution of the pornographic material. 14. Punishment for using child for pornographic purposes. (1) Whoever uses a child or children for pornographic purposes shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years and shall also be liable to fine and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years and also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever using a child or children for pornographic purposes under sub-section (1), commits an offence referred to in section 3 or section 5 or section 7 or section 9 by directly participating in such pornographic acts, shall be punished for the said offences also under section 4, section 6, section 8 and section 10, respectively, in addition to the punishment provided in sub-section (1).” 32. From perusal of the above, it is clear that the above Section provides that the sentence shall not be less than 5 years and the accused shall also be liable to fine, which means that at least 5 years jail sentence is required to be awarded in case the accused is found guilty. However, the learned trial Court, in its wisdom has awarded 7 years of jail sentence. Section 14 of the POCSO Act further states that in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the accused shall be awarded with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years and fine. Awarding straightaway 7 years jail sentence for the offence committed for the first time appears to be unreasonable. 33. In the case in hand, it is the first conviction of the appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan under Section 13/14 of the POCSO Act and as such, this Court deems it proper to modify the said jail sentence from 7 years to 5 years. However, he shall also be liable to deposit the fine amount as awarded by the learned trial Court. His conviction under the Section 506(II) of the IPC and Section 67B of the I.T. Act 2000, are upheld. 34. As a result, Cr.A. No. 1457/2022 filed by the appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan is allowed in part. 35. However, he shall also be liable to deposit the fine amount as awarded by the learned trial Court. His conviction under the Section 506(II) of the IPC and Section 67B of the I.T. Act 2000, are upheld. 34. As a result, Cr.A. No. 1457/2022 filed by the appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan is allowed in part. 35. The appellants are stated to be in jail. The appellant-Karan Ram Chauhan shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2022. The appellant-Ram Kumar Chouhan shall serve out the sentence as modified by this Court. 36. Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any.