JUDGMENT : R.M. JOSHI, J. 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 4th May 2023 passed in POCSO Special Case No.872 of 2020 convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 354-A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short "IPC") and Sections 6, 10 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act") and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 20 years with fine. 2. It is the case of prosecution that the victim aged 5 years is neighbour of the accused. When the victim went to the house of the accused to play with his daughter, on 3 rd August 2020, she told her mother/informant about accused having touched her chest, cheeks and lips and also kissed her on her lips. The informant disclosed this fact to the mother of the accused and asked her to give understanding to the accused. On 17 th August 2020, the victim disclosed to her paternal uncle that the accused touched her inappropriately and also put his finger in her private part. Once again, the said fact was disclosed to the mother of the accused. On having received such information from the victim, the informant lodged report on 18 th August 2020 and crime to be registered vide C.R.No.438 of 2020 against the accused. 3. During the course of investigation, the victim was sent for medical examination, so also her statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.PC. Statements of other witnesses were recorded by police. Seized muddemal was sent to CA for chemical examination. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 4. Learned Trial Court framed charge against the accused and since he abjured the charge, prosecution examined nine witnesses : PW1 Victim PW2 Mother of victim/informant PW3 Allauddin Gani Mohd Shaikh PW4 Shekhar Narsaya Bitala PW5 Paternal Uncle of the victim PW6 API Amol Talekar PW7 WAPI Geeta Solanki IO PW8 Dr. Abhilasha Ganveer MO PW9 Ghanshyam Patil 5. The incriminating circumstances brought on record by the prosecution were put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC.. The accused did not lead any evidence. Learned Trial Court found the evidence on record conclusive to prove the guilt of the accused and hence recorded judgment of conviction against him. 6. The incriminating circumstances brought on record by the prosecution were put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC.. The accused did not lead any evidence. Learned Trial Court found the evidence on record conclusive to prove the guilt of the accused and hence recorded judgment of conviction against him. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the overall circumstances, in which, the offence in question came to be recorded against the accused. It is his submission that there is admission given by the informant as well as the uncle of the victim indicating that the complaint was lodged by the mother of the accused first in time and in response thereto, after police came, the FIR was lodged by the informant in order to falsely implicate the accused in this crime. It is further argued that the evidence of victim as well as mother and uncle of the victim is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the reason that there are material inconsistencies in respect of the alleged dates of incident and the acts committed by the accused. It is submitted that though it is claimed that the incident which occurred on 3 rd August 2020 involves molestation of the victim, firstly, there is no complaint in this regard immediately and, secondly, the evidence of the victim is inconsistent with the same. It is argued that in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., PW1 only states about the incident of finger penetration to have occurred along with molestation on 3 rd August 2020, which is contrary to the evidence including the FIR. Although the prosecution claims that the medical evidence supports the victim’s version, it is sought to be argued that no fresh injuries could have been found on her body, including her private parts, in view of the fact that the incident allegedly occurred on 17 th August 2020 while the medical examination took place only on 19 th August 2020. It is also argued that there was no allegation of any biting being done by the accused to the victim, however, such injuries are found during the clinical examination of the victim. It is his submission that the possibility of injury being caused by someone else is not ruled out. It is also argued that there was no allegation of any biting being done by the accused to the victim, however, such injuries are found during the clinical examination of the victim. It is his submission that the possibility of injury being caused by someone else is not ruled out. It is also pointed out that the uncle of the victim (PW5) claims that the alleged incident of commission of dirty act was done in his presence by the accused, which is practically impossible as he would not have allowed about such incident to have taken place in his presence. It is further argued that the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the possibility of false implication owing to the fact that there was a complaint lodged by the mother of the accused first in time. Finally, it is argued that the informant/mother of the victim has candidly recorded her “no objection” for enlargement of the accused on bail, which according to him, indicates that the accused is innocent and is falsely implicated in the crime. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim as well as learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order. It is their contention that the prosecution has proved the core facts of the accused committing sexual violence on the victim and the same is duly supported by medical evidence on record and in such circumstances, having regard to Section 29 of the POCSO Act, there would be no justification for causing interference in the impugned judgment and order. It was further argued that position of law is settled to say that sole testimony of victim is sufficient to convict the accused without seeking corroboration which is present herein. It is further pointed out that the minor discrepancies will have to be ignored as the same do not affect the case of the prosecution adversely. It is argued that the burden was on accused to rebut the presumption, which the accused has failed to discharge in this case. In this regard, reference is made to the cross-examination of the victim, which according to them, in fact confirms a case of sexual assault on her. Finally, it is argued that owing to the seriousness of the crime and considering the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence, there is no interference called for in the impugned judgment and order. 8. In this regard, reference is made to the cross-examination of the victim, which according to them, in fact confirms a case of sexual assault on her. Finally, it is argued that owing to the seriousness of the crime and considering the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence, there is no interference called for in the impugned judgment and order. 8. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that the fact about victim being minor and aged about 5 years at the time of incident is not in dispute. The prosecution has discharged the burden of proving victim to be minor and hence, provisions of POCSO Act would apply to the instant case. 9. The FIR herein came to be lodged on 18 th August 2020. It is stated by the informant therein about the occurrence of the incident of molestation and sexual assault on the victim on 3 rd August 2020 and 17 th August 2020. The informant, in her testimony before the Trial Court, has deposed about the incident occurred on 3 rd August 2020 and the same being brought to the notice of the mother of the accused and that she was asked to give understanding to the accused. It further appears from the evidence on record that the victim had disclosed one more incident of 17 th August 2020 to her paternal uncle-PW5 which was also disclosed to the mother of the accused. During the cross-examination of this witness, though dispute is sought to be raised with regard to the dates of occurrence of incident, the defense was unable to bring anything on record to indicate that the victim’s mother had not informed about the occurrence of the incidents to the mother of the accused and asked her to advise him not to indulge in such acts. 10. The testimony of the victim PW1, who was aged about 5 years, shows that she was consistent in making statement with regard to the material facts of the case including the place of her own residence so also of the accused and of she visiting the house of the accused. It is also stated by her about the accused having committed not only acts of molestation but also act of inserting finger in her private part. It is also stated by her about the accused having committed not only acts of molestation but also act of inserting finger in her private part. During cross-examination, leave apart, creating any doubt with regard to the statement of the victim, in fact it is brought on record that such incident has occurred twice. Perusal of the entire cross-examination, does not lead to the conclusion that the testimony of the victim is not reliable. Similarly, the possibility of any tutoring is also ruled out having regard to the tenor of her statements before the Court. Even if there are certain minor inconistencies which have occurred in the testimony of the victim as compared to the previous statement, it is necessary to take note of the fact that the victim is aged just about 5 years and that in that case, it was practically not possible for her to depose the dates and events with precision. This Court, therefore, finds her testimony free from blemish. It is a settled position of law that such creditworthy testimony of the victim can become sole basis for conviction of the accused. In this case, further there is medical evidence to support her version about the incidents. The evidence of Medical Officer PW8 shows that on 19 th August 2020 the victim was examined by her. She found fresh bite marks present on her right upper arm, left upper back, bruise on her abdominal examination and a fresh complete hymenal tear. Though the Medical Officer accepts in the cross-examination about the age of tear around 24 hours, it is pertinent to note that the incident of 17 th August 2020 is also claimed to have occurred with the victim. Pertinently, there is no suggestion to the victim or her mother about injuries being made in order to falsely implicate the accused in this crime. 11. It would be relevant to note that the testimony of PW5-paternal uncle of the victim, though seems exaggeration, he having seen the actual bad act of accused, there is consistent evidence of this witness, victim and the mother of victim to show that in fact, one incident was witnessed by the uncle of the accused catching hold of the victim’s hand. The victim thereafter disclosed occurrence of the incident to him. The victim thereafter disclosed occurrence of the incident to him. In this regard, it is pertinent to take note of the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. While answering question No. 11, the accused states that on 17 th August 2020, he had gone to the common bathroom and the girl child was also there in one of the bathrooms. He also states that the uncle of the girl came and told her that her mother is calling her. Though he further states about the uncle of the girl having told her that she should say that Taufiqbhai is touching her and thereby the victim was tutored. In the cross-examination of PW-5 and informant, however, no such suggestion is made, nor is the victim cross-examined accordingly. The statement of the accused, therefore, at least indicates that on 17 th August 2020, the victim and the accused were together and this fact was witnessed by her uncle PW5. 12. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of Section 29 of the POCSO Act. This provision speaks about the presumption of the offences charged against the accused. No doubt, even in respect of offences under POCSO Act, the burden would be on prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, however, unlike any IPC offences, the onus shifts upon the accused to rebut the presumption once fundamental facts are proved by proseuction. Such presumption can be rebutted not only by leading independent evidence but also by bringing material admissions by way of cross-examination, which are sufficient to dislodge the presumption by way of cross-examination of witnesses. The evidence on record, more particularly, the cross-examination of witnesses does not indicate the rebuttal of presumption by the accused. On the contrary, he admits the presence of the victim along with him, and one of the witnesses, i.e., the uncle of the victim (PW5), who claims to have seen them. 13. Defense of the accused is about there being dispute with regard to the purchase of house by the father of the victim and since the accused refused the said offer, he claims to have been falsely implicated in the crime. Suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses in this regard are denied by them. In case of any such offer, it was for the accused to lead some evidence to indicate existence of such dispute. Suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses in this regard are denied by them. In case of any such offer, it was for the accused to lead some evidence to indicate existence of such dispute. This could have been done by the defense by placing on record any evidence or at least the NC complaints lodged against the family members of the victim on 18 th August 2020. Though the informant and witnesses admit about lodging of such complaint by the mother of the accused against them, there is no evidence to indicate as to the nature of the said complaint. This needs to be considered in the backdrop of the evidence of the informant that on the date of filing of the report against the accused, a quarrel occurred between the two families over the sexual abuse of the victim. There is thus evidence on record to indicate that the report came to be lodged against the accused after the quarrel and also lodging of N.C. complaint by accused side. Mere admission of the informant about lodging of the complaint by the mother of the accused cannot lead to the conclusion that the report lodged by the informant against the accused is by way of a counter blast to the complaint against her. 14. This could have been accepted, on placing before the Court the N.C. complaint which would have cleared the dispute between parties. In absence of such evidence, which was very well available with defense, it cannot be assumed that defense is able to rebut presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. 15. It is also sought to be impressed upon this Court that the mother of the victim had recorded “No objection “ for grant of bail to the accused and had also stated that he be released on bail during trial. Learned counsel for the accused submits that this indicates there is no substance in the allegation against the accused for sexually assaulting the victim. No doubt in the cross-examination, the informant has accepted that she has recorded “No Objection” for enlargement of the appellant of bail. Pertinently, she does not resile from her statements made earlier, so also the victim sticks to her version. No doubt in the cross-examination, the informant has accepted that she has recorded “No Objection” for enlargement of the appellant of bail. Pertinently, she does not resile from her statements made earlier, so also the victim sticks to her version. In the circumstances, only inference which can be drawn from her statement to the effect of allowing the accused to be released on bail is that the informant finds the accused being already sufficiently punished and nothing more. 16. Needless to say that the consent of the victim or informant as the case may become immaterial when there is minimum sentence prescribed by the statute for a particular offence. Here in this case, the offence proved under Section 6 of the POCSO Act attracts minimum sentence of 20 years and even the courts are not permitted to reduce the same. In such circumstances, the question of taking cognizance of the concession sought to be given by the victim or informant does not arise. 17. It would have been a different case, if the victim or the informant resiled from their previous statement and did not support the case of prosecution, which could establish possibility of false implication. Merely because the informant records ‘No Objection” for enlargement of the accused on bail cannot lead to the presumption of innocence of the accused. 18. Perusal of the evidence on record, so also the findings of the learned Trial Court clearly show that the finding of guilt as recorded is in consonance with the evidence on record and having regard to the fact that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption as contemplated under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, it is not a case for causing interference in the impugned order. 19. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed.