JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Michael Zothankhuma, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B.Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Assam. No one appears for the respondent no. 2. 2. The appellant has put to challenge the impugned judgement dated 08/08/2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagaon in Special(POCSO) Case No. 35/2018, by which the appellant has been convicted under section 6 of the POCSO Act, for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his daughter of 9 years, for 2 years. The appellant was consequently sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months vide sentence order dated 09/08/2019. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR dated 24/04/2017 was submitted by the Child-Line Counselor (informant), who was also the prosecution witness No. 1(PW-1) to the Officer-in-Charge of Morikolong TOP, Nagaon, to the effect that Sri Gita Baruah and Abanita Saikia (PW-4), both employees of Nagaon Civil Hospital, had made a call to the Nagaon Child-Line informing that a 9 year old girl (victim)/PW-3 had been raped by her father since the age of 7 years, after her mother had died of illness. Further, the victim had not divulged/disclosed the matter to anyone, as her appellant father had threatened to kill her if she disclosed the matter. However, on 24/04/2017, being unable to bear the torture she suffered at the hands of her father, she narrated the incident to the employees of the Nagaon Civil Hospital. On receipt of the information, the victim was rescued with the help and assistance of the employees of Child-line and the hospital. The FIR also states that the father of the victim girl was absconding. 4. Pursuant to the FIR dated 24/04/2017, Nagaon Sadar PS case No. 1007/2017 under section 4 of the POCSO Act was registered on 24/04/2017. The Investigating Officer (IO) thereafter started his investigation and after taking the statements of various witnesses and producing the victim for medical examination, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant, as a prima facie case under section 4 of the POCSO Act was found against the appellant. The Investigating Officer (IO) thereafter started his investigation and after taking the statements of various witnesses and producing the victim for medical examination, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant, as a prima facie case under section 4 of the POCSO Act was found against the appellant. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charge under section 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant, which was denied by the appellant, who claimed to be tried. Consequently, 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses and the appellant as DW-1 were examined as witnesses by the learned Trial Court. The appellant was also examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court thereafter came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of having committed the offence under section 5(m) of the PCOSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, he was convicted under section 6 of the PCOSO Act. 5. The appellant has thus come in appeal to this Court, challenging the impugned judgement and sentence order, on the ground that though the FIR stated that the victim had narrated that she had been raped by her father to Sri Gita Baruah, Sri Gita Baruah had not been made a prosecution witness, which could lead to a presumption that the prosecution had some evidence to hide. Further, the case was fabricated by the victim, as the appellant had slapped her twice, as she had come home after 9 PM after riding a bicycle. 6. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, on the other hand, submits that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the informant had not been shaken by the defence during the trial. Further, the medical evidence showing that the hymen of the victim was absent, corroborated the prosecution case that there had been aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim for 2 years, starting from the time the victim was aged 7 years till the disclosure of the incidents of rape to Sri Gita Baruah and Abanita Saikia by the victim. 7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses and a perusal of the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C., shows that the victim’s mother had expired sometime in the year 2015 and that after the death of her mother, the appellant had raped the victim on various occasions for around 2 years. 8. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses and a perusal of the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C., shows that the victim’s mother had expired sometime in the year 2015 and that after the death of her mother, the appellant had raped the victim on various occasions for around 2 years. It was only after the victim had informed Sri Gita Baruah and PW-4 sometime in April, 2017 that she had been raped by her father/appellant, that an FIR had been lodged against the appellant through the informant/PW-1, who was a Child-line Counselor. We have also seen that prior to taking the testimony of the victim girl by the learned trial Court, the concerned Magistrate had put preliminary questions to the victim girl, to satisfy the learned Magistrate with regard to the competency of the victim girl to understand the questions put to her and to satisfy the Court that the victim could give rational answers to the questions put to her. 9. The testimony of the victim (PW-3) is to the effect that the appellant/father raped the victim many times after the death of her mother and that she had been threatened that she would be killed if she disclosed the matter to anyone. 10. The evidence of the Doctor who had examined the victim, i.e. PW-7, is to the effect that the hymen of the victim was absent and in his opinion, there was evidence of sexual abuse/assault. The doctor (PW-7) also stated that there was no evidence of recent injury on the private parts of the victim. It was also stated by PW-7 that the victim had informed him that the appellant had sexually abused the victim every alternative night in a drunken state and that her mother had died. 11. The evidence of the appellant as DW-1 is to the effect that he used to return home around 10 - 10.30 p.m. after pulling a rickshaw. His wife had expired and the victim was his only child. He lived in a rented house near the Railway station. DW-1 stated that he did not understand why his daughter had lodged a case against him and that he did not know the informant/PW-1. DW-1 also stated that his daughter did not return home till 9/10 p.m., as she used to go riding on a bicycle, for which he scolded her. DW-1 stated that he did not understand why his daughter had lodged a case against him and that he did not know the informant/PW-1. DW-1 also stated that his daughter did not return home till 9/10 p.m., as she used to go riding on a bicycle, for which he scolded her. He also stated that the allegation leveled against him by his daughter was false. He also stated that prior to the death of his wife, his wife was being treated in Nagaon Civil Hospital and his daughter used to stay with her mother. In his cross examination, DW-1 stated that the employees and the Nurses of the Nagaon Civil Hospital knew his daughter and after the death of her mother, the victim/daughter used to visit the hospital occasionally. He also stated that he used to return home at night under the influence of country liquor. 12. In his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant stated that false evidence had been adduced against him and that a false case had been lodged by the victim, as he had “dealt her two blows” when she returned home at 9 p.m. after riding a bicycle. 13. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ashe Ram , reported in (2005) 7 SCC 742 , the Supreme Court has held that conviction for offence of rape can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutix alone, unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. 14. On perusing the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, we find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-7 and the evidence of the IO, who is PW-8, who had stated that he had investigated the crime and apprehended the appellant from the Morikolong railway track. The evidence of the above prosecution witnesses was not shaken by the defence and no ground has been shown to us, as to why the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted by us. In fact, the evidence of the victim girl inspires the confidence of this Court and we are of the view that the same is a truthful account of what had happened to her, besides the fact that the medical evidence supports the testimony of the victim. 15. In fact, the evidence of the victim girl inspires the confidence of this Court and we are of the view that the same is a truthful account of what had happened to her, besides the fact that the medical evidence supports the testimony of the victim. 15. Having stated the above, we also like to reproduce the evidence of PW-6, who had stated that the victim had told her that her father used to commit bad act on her at night after consuming liquor. The evidence of PW-6 is as follows :- “On oath I know Raju Patra and victim Nandini Patra. Earlier, they were staying in a rented house near my house. Around 3 p.m. one day two years ago, Nandini told me in tears that her father used to commit bad act on her at night after consuming liquor. I heard that a case had been lodged against Raju. The police questioned me about the incident. X X X It is not a fact that I did not state to the police about Nandini telling me that her father had committed bad act on her. It is not a fact that I stated to the police that when I had asked Nandini, she had not told me anything. It is not a fact that my statement that Nandini told me that her father had committed bad act on her is false.” 16. Though the appellant had stated in his examination made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he had dealt 2 (two) blows on the victim, due to her riding a bicycle and coming home at 9 p.m., due to which the victim had lodged a false case, the said explanation given by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. does not find place in his testimony given as DW-1 before the learned trial Court. On considering the above, we are of the view that the evidence of DW-1, that a false case had been foisted upon the appellant, is not correct and is not supported by evidence. 17. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 18. Send back the TCR. 19. In appreciation of the assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae, his fees should be paid by the Assam State Legal Service Authority.