JUDGMENT : G.A. Sanap, J. 1. In this appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge-9, Nagpur, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, on conviction, sentenced the accused under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “ POCSO ”) to undergo simple imprisonment of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment of five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “ I.P.C.”). 2. Background facts:- The victim boy, on the date of the incident, was 12 years old. The report was lodged by his mother, PW-1. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of occurrence of incident, the victim was residing with his mother and other family members. The accused is residing in front of the house of the informant. On 17.11.2019 at about 12.00 p.m. the accused called the victim to his house. The victim went to the house of the accused. The victim returned at 2.00 p.m. The mother of the victim noticed that the victim was crying. On inquiry with the victim, he informed that the accused in his house removed his pant and also his own pant and thereafter inserted his penis into his anus. The mother of the victim on examination, found the injuries at the anus of the victim. The victim complained of pain in his anus. The mother of the victim immediately took the victim to the dispensary in the locality. From the dispensary in the locality she took the victim to the Radiance Hospital. 3. In the Radiance Hospital, the victim was examined by Dr. Krishna Beniram Gopche (PW-4) and Dr. Manoj Gukul Purohit (PW-5). PW-4, after noting down the history of assault found that it was a medico legal case and therefore, he informed the police. In the night of 17.11.2019 Police Station Officer and WPC Seema visited Radiance Hospital, Nagpur. They recorded the statement of the victim. The mother of the victim thereafter went to Police Station and lodged a report of the incident. In the night of 17.11.2019 Police Station Officer and WPC Seema visited Radiance Hospital, Nagpur. They recorded the statement of the victim. The mother of the victim thereafter went to Police Station and lodged a report of the incident. On the basis of this report, crime bearing No.53/2019 was registered against the accused at Wathoda Police Station. 4. After registration of the crime, Police Station Officer went to the scene of the occurrence and drew spot panchanama on 18.11.2019. He seized the articles from the spot. PSI Ambhore conducted further investigations. The victim boy was referred for medical examination on 18.11.2019. The accused was arrested on 18.11.2019. The clothes of the victim and the clothes of the accused were seized. Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. The samples were sent for chemical analysis. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused. 5. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The defence of the accused is of false implication on account of enmity between him and the family of the victim. The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt against the accused, examined ten witnesses. Learned Judge on consideration of the evidence found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 377 of the I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him, as above. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order the appellant has come before this Court in appeal. 6. I have heard learned Advocate for the appellant, learned APP for the State and learned Advocate for the respondent No.2. Perused the record and proceedings. 7. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that on the basis of categorical admissions given by the victim boy and his mother the defence of the accused has been substantially established. Learned Advocate took me through the evidence and pointed out that the victim and his mother have admitted that the mother was residing with one Swapnil Udhapure without performing marriage with him. Learned Advocate further pointed out that people from the locality did not like stay of the informant with Swapnil Udapure and therefore, they objected to her relations with Swapni Udapure. Learned Advocate submitted that this admission is sufficient to probabalize the defence of false implication as put forth by the accused. Learned Advocate further pointed out that people from the locality did not like stay of the informant with Swapnil Udapure and therefore, they objected to her relations with Swapni Udapure. Learned Advocate submitted that this admission is sufficient to probabalize the defence of false implication as put forth by the accused. Learned Advocate further submitted that the evidence of the victim and his mother (PW-1) is not consistent and therefore, does not inspire confidence. Learned Advocate submitted that the reliance placed on their evidence by the learned Judge without further independent corroboration was not proper. Learned Advocate submitted that the medical examination report of the victim and the medical examination report of the accused by itself would not be sufficient to prove the charge against the accused. Learned Advocate took me through the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5, the doctors attached to Radiance Hospital and pointed out that while recording the history of assault it was stated that the act was committed by unknown person. Learned Advocate submitted that if the accused was involved in the crime, then the informant and the victim at the initial stage would have specifically stated his name to the doctor. Learned Advocate submitted that the name of the accused stated to Dr. Laldintluaga (PW-6) for the first time on 18.11.2019 was after thought. Learned Advocate submitted that in the fact situation, delay in lodging the report was inordinate and therefore, in the absence of a proper explanation of the delay, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of the same. Learned Advocate submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to properly appreciate the evidence and as such, has come to a wrong conclusion. Learned Advocate for the appellant, in support of his submissions has placed reliance on following two decisions. i) Girish Shirodkar vs. State, Represented by the PP and Another reported at 2020 SCC Online Bom 898 ii) Dattatraya Ramchandra Sutar (Pawar) vs. The State of Maharashtra reported at 2017 SCC Online Bom 7980. 8. Learned APP submitted that the evidence of victim and his mother is concrete, cogent and reliable as to the occurrence of the incident. Learned APP submitted that the defence of false implication has not at all been probabalized on the basis of the admissions sought to be relied upon from the cross-examination of the victim as well as mother of the victim. Learned APP submitted that the defence of false implication has not at all been probabalized on the basis of the admissions sought to be relied upon from the cross-examination of the victim as well as mother of the victim. Learned APP submitted that the conduct of the informant, being mother to first take the victim to the hospital for examination was consistent with the conduct of man of ordinary prudence. Learned APP took me through the evidence of Medical Officers PW Nos.4, 5 and 6 to make good her submission that victim had sustained serious injuries to his anus and he was undergoing severe pain. Learned APP pointed out that when the matter was reported by PW-4 to the Police Station then the police went to the hospital. Learned APP would submit that the treatment to the victim was the first priority of the mother. Learned APP took me through the evidence of doctors PW Nos.4, 5 and 6 and submitted that the injuries found on the person of the accused as well as on the person of the victim at the time of their local examination are sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the victim and his mother (PW-1). Learned APP submitted that the learned Judge has properly appreciated the evidence. Learned APP submitted that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution has proved that on the date of the offence, the victim was 12 years of age. 9. I have minutely perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. I have carefully gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. The submission has been made by learned Advocate for the appellant that the birth date of the victim has not been proved by legally admissible evidence. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of the incident, the victim was 12 years old. The victim has stated that his birth date is 23.11.2007. At the time of his evidence, he was studying in the 7th standard. Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation had collected the school leaving certificate of the victim. The prosecution has examined the Head Master of school (PW-3). At the time of his evidence, he had produced the original admission register to prove the relevant entry relating to the date of the admission of the victim and his birth date. Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation had collected the school leaving certificate of the victim. The prosecution has examined the Head Master of school (PW-3). At the time of his evidence, he had produced the original admission register to prove the relevant entry relating to the date of the admission of the victim and his birth date. He has stated that the victim was admitted in the school on 17.05.2013. He has categorically stated that the birth date of the victim recorded in the register is 23.11.2007. The school leaving certificate is at Exh.11. The victim as per this record, left the school on 30.04.2017 when he passed the 4th standard. The photocopy of the School General Register is at Exh.12. The original register was examined by the Court and the necessary endorsement to that effect has been made while recording the evidence. It is true that initially, in the register, the year of birth was mentioned as 2009. However, the entry shows that it was later on corrected as 2007. Perusal of the General School Register would show that the name of the victim is at serial No.2872. His birth date recorded in the register is 23.11.2007. The School Leaving Certificate was issued on 27.11.2019. The original entry from the register has been proved. The year was corrected from 2009 to 2007. This correction in the year of the birth of the victim could not be said to be the handiwork of the victim and his mother. It cannot be said that this correction was effected to show the victim as a child. The correction would not enure to the benefit of the prosecution. By this correction the age would have been increased by two years. Any correction in the year of the birth which had reduced the age of the victim to bring him within the legal framework could have been beneficial to the prosecution. Even if it is assumed that such correction was made by school people, it would have no serious effect inasmuch as the victim on the date of the incident, in any case would be below 18 years of age. In my view, therefore, this evidence is sufficient to prove that on the date of incident, the victim was child as defined under Section 2 (d) of the POCSO Act. 11. In my view, therefore, this evidence is sufficient to prove that on the date of incident, the victim was child as defined under Section 2 (d) of the POCSO Act. 11. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of the victim and his mother, who is the informant. The mother was informed about the actual occurrence of the incident by the victim. The mother was instrumental in carrying the victim to the hospital. The conduct of the mother is consistent with the conduct of a person of ordinary prudence placed in the similar situation. On being confronted with such a serious incident and the mother having noticed the injury to the anus of the victim, it was but natural for mother to ensure the proper medical treatment to her son. She, therefore, did not bother to first go to Police Station. She went to the hospital and as such, it cannot be said that there was any delay in lodging the report. It has been proved that, she went to Radiance Hospital. Dr. Krishna Gopche (PW-4), on being apprised about the incident, immediately informed the Police Station. According to PW-4, it was a medico legal case and therefore, he informed the Police. Police went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the informant. This evidence on record clearly proves that the victim was carried to Radiance Hospital by PW-1 for a medial examination. This evidence is sufficient to prove that on being informed about the occurrence of the incident and the cause of the injuries sustained by the victim, the doctor informed the police. 12. PW-5 treated the victim. PW-5 has categorically stated that on examination of the victim, he found active bleeding in his anus. Exh.16 is the prescription issued by him. The prescription would show that the victim was examined by him. In the said prescription, the history of the assault was recorded as sodomy by a neighbour on 17.11.2019 at about 2.00 p.m. However, the name of the said neighbour was not mentioned in the same. Similar is the case with regard to Exh.14, which is the police intimation form. The victim was initially examined by Dr. Krishna Gopche (PW-4). He has stated that on examination of the victim, he found two to three blood drops near the anus. He was working as Assistant Residence Doctor at Radiance Hospital, Nagpur. Similar is the case with regard to Exh.14, which is the police intimation form. The victim was initially examined by Dr. Krishna Gopche (PW-4). He has stated that on examination of the victim, he found two to three blood drops near the anus. He was working as Assistant Residence Doctor at Radiance Hospital, Nagpur. He informed the senior doctor about the condition of the victim. He thereafter, informed the police. Exh.14 is the Medico Legal Case Report. PW-4 has stated that the victim was brought to the hospital at 7.00 p.m. He has stated that he gave a letter to the police at about 9.00 p.m. The contemporaneous documentary evidence on record is sufficient to establish that thereafter police visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim. PW-5 has recorded in the prescription that the patient was not willing for further treatment and therefore, he was referred to G.M.C., Nagpur. In my view, this evidence is sufficient to explain the delay caused in reporting the matter to the police. Perusal of the evidence of the informant (PW- 1) would further show that there was no delay at all. The delay, as can be seen from the evidence of PW-1, was on account of her visit to the hospital to provide treatment to her son. The delay, if any, in lodging the report has been sufficiently explained to the satisfaction of the Court. 13. PW-2 is the victim. In his evidence, before the Court, he has narrated first hand account of the incident. On the date of the incident, he was 12 years old innocent boy. The accused is his neighbour. He has stated that on the date of the incident, the accused called him to his house. He went to his house. The accused sat near him. The accused was playing the game on his mobile phone. The victim was watching the game. He has stated that thereafter, the accused put his hand on his shoulder and then he went towards the door. At that time, one of the friends of the accused came to his house. The accused sent his friend to bring Kharra, i.e., a mixture of tobacco. He has stated that thereafter, the accused made him sleep on a cot and then, after removing his clothes and the clothes of the victim, he inserted his penis into victim’s anus. He had pain. He, therefore, cried. The accused sent his friend to bring Kharra, i.e., a mixture of tobacco. He has stated that thereafter, the accused made him sleep on a cot and then, after removing his clothes and the clothes of the victim, he inserted his penis into victim’s anus. He had pain. He, therefore, cried. He has stated that accused put his hand on his mouth. He tried to rescue himself. The accused took him to another room and threatened not to disclose the incident to anybody. He has stated that thereafter he gave a push to the accused and ran away from the house. After coming to his house, he disclosed the incident to his mother. He has stated that thereafter his mother took him to the hospital. So he has narrated the course of the event thereafter namely, the examination by the doctor at Radiance Hospital, the arrival of the police and the reporting of the matter to the police by his mother and his examination by the doctor. He was subjected to searching cross-examination. He has admitted that Swapnil Udapure is not his father. He has claimed ignorance about the marriage of his mother with Swapnil Udapure. An attempt has been made in the cross-examination to bring on record that he was a tutored witness. However, the admissions given by him clearly suggest that he was not a tutored witness. It is evident on perusal of his cross-examination that he did not deviate from his version as to the occurrence of the incident narrated in his examination-in-chief. The answers given by him in his cross-examination are consistent. 14. On the contrary, perusal of his cross-examination would show that he has reiterated certain facts with regard to the occurrence of the incident and the involvement of the accused in the crime. He has denied the suggestions of enmity of his mother with the accused. On careful analysis of his evidence, I do not see any reason to discard or disbelieve the evidence. The evidence of victim on re-appreciation has been found to be of sterling quality. A witness, who narrates the imaginary incident before the Court can be immediately caught in a cross-examination. Such a witness is bound to commit mistakes on some vital aspects of the case. The victim has consistently maintained his version as to the occurrence of the incident and the involvement of the accused. 15. A witness, who narrates the imaginary incident before the Court can be immediately caught in a cross-examination. Such a witness is bound to commit mistakes on some vital aspects of the case. The victim has consistently maintained his version as to the occurrence of the incident and the involvement of the accused. 15. The mother of the victim (PW-1) has reiterated the incident narrated by PW-2. She has also deposed about the examination of the anus of the victim by her when he came crying to the house. She has narrated in detail the course of events till the lodging of the report. She has stated about her visit to the local area hospital and from local area hospital to the Radiance Hospital. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that her husband is residing separately from her at Gujrat. She is residing with Swapnil Udapure. She has stated that Swapnil Udapure is her husband. She has stated that they got married two years back. She has stated that the accused is residing with his wife and children. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that she was residing with Swapnil Udapure without taking divorce from her husband, in my view, it would not reflect much upon her credibility as to the occurrence of the incident. She has denied the suggestion of a quarrel with the accused on any count. She has denied that people from the locality had objected for her stay with Swapnil Udapure. It is seen on perusal of her cross-examination that no admission of any significance has been brought on record to substantiate the defence of the accused. The accused has not examined any independent witness to substantiate his defence. If the people of the locality had any objection for the stay of the informant with Swapnil Udapure, then those people would have come forward to testify in support of the accused. It is therefore, evident that this defence is just for the sake of a defence. The evidence of the informant (PW-1) and the evidence of the victim (PW-2) is consistent. On careful perusal and appreciation of evidence, I do not see any reason to discard or disbelieve the evidence. 16. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 has been corroborated by the evidence of doctors PW-4 and PW-5. They were attached to Radiance Hospital at Nagpur. The evidence of the informant (PW-1) and the evidence of the victim (PW-2) is consistent. On careful perusal and appreciation of evidence, I do not see any reason to discard or disbelieve the evidence. 16. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 has been corroborated by the evidence of doctors PW-4 and PW-5. They were attached to Radiance Hospital at Nagpur. Their oral evidence has been corroborated by the documentary evidence. The documentary evidence clearly shows that on 17.11.2019 the victim was taken to the hospital by informant. The only thing that can support the contention of the accused is that his name was not specifically stated to the doctors, while narrating the history of assault. However, it was stated that this act was committed by neighbour on 17.11.2019 at 2.00 p.m. It is pertinent to note that evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 is sufficient to prove that victim was brought to the hospital by his mother (PW-1) and on examination they found that there were injuries to his anus. From Radiance Hospital the informant went to Police Station. The report was lodged on 17.11.2019 at 20.20 hours. The detailed narration of the incident has been made in the report. The name of the accused was specifically mentioned in the report. 17. The evidence of Medical Officer, PW-6, who examined the victim as well as the accused is the most vital piece of corroborative evidence. PW-6 examined the victim on 18.11.2019 at 2.40 p.m. The victim narrated the history of assault. The history of the assault narrated by the victim is consistent with the contents of the report. PW-6 examined the victim. On examination, he found following injuries. “i) Evidence of perianl tear of size 0.5 x 0.1 cm. Subcutaneous at 6 O’clock position. ii) Evidence of perianl tear of size 0.3 x 0.1 cm subcutaneous deep 8 O’clock position. iii) Anus was radish and swelling presence. Perianl tear margins red, swelling present in surrounding.” PW-6 deposed that the injury was fresh within 24 hours to 36 hours. On the basis of his examination, he opined that overall findings are consistent with sexual assault. Medical Certificate is at Exh.19. 18. As far as the examination of the accused is concerned, he has stated that he examined the accused on 19.11.2019. He found the following injuries on his body. On the basis of his examination, he opined that overall findings are consistent with sexual assault. Medical Certificate is at Exh.19. 18. As far as the examination of the accused is concerned, he has stated that he examined the accused on 19.11.2019. He found the following injuries on his body. i) Abrasion 5 x 0.2 cm present on left side of chest 5 cm from midline, radish brown. ii) Abrasion 3 x 0.20 cm. present on left side of chest and 1 cm below and medial to injury No.1, 0.5 cm from midline, radish brown, horizontally placed. iii) Abrasion 3 x 0.1 cm. present on right side of chest 14 cm from midline, vertically placed, radish brown, vertically placed. iv) Abrasion 2 x 0.1 cm. present on right side of chest 17 cm from midline, vertically placed, radish brown. v) Linear abrasion 4 cm in length present at right inguinal region, radish brown, horizontally placed. vi) Abrasion 5 x 01 cm. present 1 cm above penis, horizontally placed and radish brown. vii) Linear abrasion 2 cm present at upper 1/3rd of right thigh, anterior aspect, radish brown, vertically obligue. 19. He has opined that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was not capable of performing sexual intercourse. He has categorically stated that age of the injury was two days and three and half hours old. The certificate issued by him is at Exh.20. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not mention the method applied by him to give his opinion with regard to the age of the injury in his medical certificate. His further cross-examination would show that no admission of any significance has been elicited therein to dent his evidence and ultimately the medical certificate. On careful perusal of his evidence, it is found that PW-6 had no reason to give a false opinion. He was an independent witness. His reports are based on the examination of the victim and the accused. Injury No.6 to the penis of the accused is clearly suggestive of the fact that the accused was involved in this crime. The doctor, on examination found more than one injury to the anus of the victim. The injuries found on the person of the accused clearly suggest that at the time of the incident, there was resistance from the victim and therefore, multiple injuries had been caused to him. The doctor, on examination found more than one injury to the anus of the victim. The injuries found on the person of the accused clearly suggest that at the time of the incident, there was resistance from the victim and therefore, multiple injuries had been caused to him. In my view, the evidence of the doctor (PW-6) is the most important corroborative piece of evidence. The evidence on record clearly rules out the possibility of false implication. 20. It is true that on the analysis of the samples, except determination of the blood group no positive material or thing could be noticed. In my view, the C.A. report needs to be appreciated in juxtaposition with the oral evidence as well as the medical evidence. The oral evidence of the victim, the informant and the medical evidence, if appreciated in proper perspective, would show that the case of the prosecution is beyond the pale of doubt. The victim and more particularly, the mother of the victim had no reason to falsely implicate the accused in such a serious crime. The presence of the injuries to the anus of the victim clearly proves that he was sexually assaulted. The mother (PW-1) would not have protected the actual perpetrator of the crime and falsely implicated the accused. The crime of sodomy had occurred. The mother was required to state before police the perpetrator of said crime. The accused has been named being the perpetrator of the said crime. The prosecution, on the basis of the cogent, concrete and reliable evidence has proved the charge against the accused. Learned Judge has thoroughly analysed the evidence on record. Learned Judge has recorded cogent reasons in support of his findings. On re-appreciation of the evidence, I am satisfied that judgment and order passed by the learned Judge does not suffer from any illegality as well as perversity. As such the judgment and order deserve to be maintained. 21. I have minutely perused the decisions cited supra relied upon by learned Advocate for the appellant. Perusal of the judgments would show that on appreciation of the evidence in both cases, the evidence was not found reliable. The version of the victim was not corroborated by medical evidence. In my view, the decisions relied upon by learned Advocate are of no help or assistance to the appellant. Perusal of the judgments would show that on appreciation of the evidence in both cases, the evidence was not found reliable. The version of the victim was not corroborated by medical evidence. In my view, the decisions relied upon by learned Advocate are of no help or assistance to the appellant. The view taken in those decisions was on the basis of the available evidence and on appreciation of the evidence. The evidence was not found sufficient to prove the charge. In my view, in the case on hand before me, the evidence is credible and as such, cannot be disbelieved. The oral evidence of victim and her mother has been corroborated by the medical evidence. 22. In view of this, I do not see any substance in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. 23. Learned appointed advocate for the respondent No.2 be paid professional fees, as per the rules. 24. The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.