JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.12.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), and Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(for short, “POCSO Act”) and order dated 04.12.2019, vide which he was sentenced as under:- Sections Sentences 354-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Section 9(f) punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.15,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Section 354-A of IPC and Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act. It was asserted that the accused was posted as JBT in Government Primary School. He showed obscene videos to the female students of class 4 on 17.09.2018 and molested them. The matter was reported to Rasalu Ram (PW-8). He immediately asked Desh Raj Rana (PW-13) to conduct an inquiry and submit a report. Desh Raj Rana (PW-13) went to the school. He called the victim, her relatives and Duni Chand (PW-14), another teacher. Duni Chand (PW-14) recorded the statements of the victim (Ext.PW-8/A), her father (Ext.PW-8/B) and the accused (Ext.PW-13/B). He sent these statements with his report(Ext.PW-13/A). Rasalu Ram (PW-8) made a written complaint (Ext.PW-8/E) to the police. F.I.R. (Ext.PW19/A) was registered at the Police Station. Inspector Mahinder Singh (PW-19) conducted the investigation. He visited the spot, prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-19/C) and recorded the statement of witnesses as per their version. He arrested the accused vide memo (Ext.PW-19/D). He seized the mobile phone of the accused (Ext.P-2) vide memo (Ext.PW-11/B). He put the mobile phone in a cloth parcel and sealed the parcel with five impressions of seal 'K'. He visited the spot, prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-19/C) and recorded the statement of witnesses as per their version. He arrested the accused vide memo (Ext.PW-19/D). He seized the mobile phone of the accused (Ext.P-2) vide memo (Ext.PW-11/B). He put the mobile phone in a cloth parcel and sealed the parcel with five impressions of seal 'K'. He filed an application (Ex. PW-19/E) for recording the statement of the victim. The victim’s statement (Ex. PW-2/B) was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. It was also video recorded, and the video recording was transferred to the memory card (Ext.PW-19/G). The victim was sent for a medical examination; however, her father refused to get her medically examined. MLC (Ext. PW-19/J) was issued. Inspector Mohinder Singh (PW-19) filed an application (Ext.PW-19/K) to obtain the record. He obtained the letter (Ext.PW-19/L) and copy of the service book (Ext.PW-19/M) from the Block Elementary Office. He filed an application before Secretary Gram Panchayat. Mukesh Kumar (PW-12) issued the birth certificate of the victim (Ext.PW-12/B), showing that she was born on 05.03.2010. The mobile phone was sent to RFSL, NR, Dharamshala. Dr Minakshi Mahajan (PW-23) examined the mobile phone of the accused and issued a report (Ext-PX) stating that no porn video was found in it but found the audio file and images of Sapna, the dancer, were present in it. The police also filed an application for (Ext.PW-12/C) to obtain the birth record. Mukesh Kumar (PW-12) issued a birth record(Ext.PW-12/D) and age certificate (Ext.PW-12/E). Inspector Mahinder Singh (PW-19) filed an application (Ex. PW-9/A) for obtaining the date of birth of the victim from the school. Khem Singh (PW-9) issued the date of birth certificate of the victim (Ext.PW-9/B), the abstract of teacher attendance register (Ext.PW-9/C), the abstract of admission register(Ext.PW-9/D), and attendance register of the students(Ext.PW-9/E). Inspector Mahinder Singh (PW-19) obtained the record from the office of Block Elementary Education Office vide memo (Ext.PW-4/A). He filed an application (Ex.PW-19/N) and obtained an admission form of the victim (Ext.PW-19/O), abstract of admission register (Ext.PW-19/P), Certificate (Ext.PW-19/Q) and the abstract of the stock register (Ext.PW-19/R). He recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version.After the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court. 3. He filed an application (Ex.PW-19/N) and obtained an admission form of the victim (Ext.PW-19/O), abstract of admission register (Ext.PW-19/P), Certificate (Ext.PW-19/Q) and the abstract of the stock register (Ext.PW-19/R). He recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version.After the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court. 3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354-A of IPC and Section 9(f) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined twenty-three witnesses to prove its case. PW-1 is the mother, PW-3 is the father, PW-7 is elder sister, and PW-17 is the grandfather of the victim (PW-2). Hans Raj (PW-4) handed over a complaint made by Rasalu Ram to the police. PW-5, PW-6, and PW-15 are the eye witnesses. Rasalu Ram (PW-8) was posted as the Block Elementary Education Officer to whom the complaint was made. Khem Singh (PW-9) produced the birth certificate of the victim and other records. Narinder Thakur (PW-10) was posted as Pradhan, who informed the police about the incident. HHC Ajay Kumar (PW-11) is the witness to the recovery of the mobile phone. Mukesh Kumar (PW-12) produced the birth certificate of the victim. Desh Raj (PW-13) and Duni Chand (PW-14) were deputed as teachers in the school. Bhawana Kumari (PW-16) was posted as a Mid-Day meal worker in the school. Constable Parmesh Kumar (PW-18) transferred the video recording to the CD. Inspector Mahinder Singh (PW-19) investigated the case. Narinder Thakur (PW-20) produced the record regarding the employment of the accused. Head Constable Deepak Kumar (PW-21) was posted as MHC, with whom the case property was deposited. Constable Amar Singh (PW-22) carried the case property to RFSL Dharamshala. Dr Minakshi Mahajan (PW-23) examined the mobile phone. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he was deputed as a teacher in the school. He denied the rest of the prosecution case. He stated that civil litigation is pending between his brother and the victim’s family. A false case was made against him by the victim and her family members by hatching a conspiracy. The statements of Rattan Chand (DW-1), Samasdeen (DW-2) and Hanif Ali (DW-3) were recorded in defence. 6. He denied the rest of the prosecution case. He stated that civil litigation is pending between his brother and the victim’s family. A false case was made against him by the victim and her family members by hatching a conspiracy. The statements of Rattan Chand (DW-1), Samasdeen (DW-2) and Hanif Ali (DW-3) were recorded in defence. 6. The learned Trial Court held that the testimony of the victim was duly corroborated by the other witnesses. It was not disputed that the accused was deputed as a JBT in the victim’s school, and the victim and other eyewitnesses were studying in the school. Ordinarily, the statement of the victim is required to be accepted unless there is something inherently improbable in it. The testimonies of the victim and other witnesses inspired confidence. It was duly proved on record that the accused had put the victim on her lap, showed her the dance and touched her private parts. The victim made a complaint, and inquiries were conducted into the matter. Dr Minakshi Mahajan (PW-23) also found the images of Sapna Dancer and an audio file related to the case, which provided valuable corroboration to the testimony of the victim. The defence version that a false case was made due to the pendency of the civil litigation was not sufficient to discard the prosecution case. The other witnesses would not have supported the victim had the case been false. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C also provided corroboration to her testimony in the Court. The minor discrepancies in the statements were not sufficient to discard them. Therefore, the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 7. Being aggrieved from the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. Witnesses were tutored, and their testimonies had major contradictions. The accused was falsely implicated by the victim's father due to the pendency of the civil litigation. The testimony of the victim was not supported by her friends, and the learned Trial Court erred in holding otherwise. The ingredients of Section 354-A of IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act were not satisfied; therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 8. The ingredients of Section 354-A of IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act were not satisfied; therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 8. I have heard Mr Ram Murti Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 9. Mr Ram Murti Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. There were major contradictions in the statements of the victim made in the presence of Duni Chand, recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and before the Court. The other witnesses had also not supported the victim's version. The place of the incident was shifted from the classroom to the office, which made the whole prosecution case doubtful. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted the testimonies of the victim and her friends were natural, and there were no major contradictions in them. The defence version that the accused was falsely implicated due to a civil dispute was inherently improbable. A father will not involve her minor daughter in a case of a sexual offence to falsely rope an innocent person. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. It was submitted that the victim (PW-2) admitted in her cross-examination that officials of Child- line had accompanied her, which shows that her testimony is tutored. This is not acceptable. Merely because the officials of Child-line, an NGO, had accompanied the victim cannot lead to an inference that she was tutored. They were the support persons meant to support the victim in attending the Court as per Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules, 2012, and their presence cannot lead to an inference that they had tutored the victim. Nothing was brought in the cross- examination of the victim to show that she was tutored. Hence, the submission that the testimony of the victim is to be discarded because she was tutored is not acceptable. 13. Nothing was brought in the cross- examination of the victim to show that she was tutored. Hence, the submission that the testimony of the victim is to be discarded because she was tutored is not acceptable. 13. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Venkateshwarlu v. State of A.P., (2012) 8 SCC 73 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 795: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 484: 2012 SCC OnLine SC 613 that the Court can act upon the testimony of a child witness if it is satisfied that he is not tutored and his testimony has a ring of truth. It was observed at page 78: 9. Several child witnesses have been relied upon in this case. The evidence of a child witness has to be subjected to the closest scrutiny and can be accepted only if the court comes to the conclusion that the child understands the question put to him and is capable of giving rational answers (see Section 118 of the Evidence Act). A child witness, by reason of his tender age, is a pliable witness. He can be tutored easily either by threat, coercion or inducement. Therefore, the court must be satisfied that the attendant circumstances do not show that the child was acting under the influence of someone or was under a threat or coercion. Evidence of a child witness can be relied upon if the court, with its expertise and ability to evaluate the evidence, comes to the conclusion that the child is not tutored and his evidence has a ring of truth. It is safe and prudent to look for corroboration for the evidence of a child witness from the other evidence on record because while giving evidence, a child may give scope to his imagination and exaggerate his version or may develop cold feet and not tell the truth or may repeat what he has been asked to say not knowing the consequences of his deposition in the court. Careful evaluation of the evidence of a child witness in the background and context of other evidence on record is a must before the court decides to rely upon it. 14. Careful evaluation of the evidence of a child witness in the background and context of other evidence on record is a must before the court decides to rely upon it. 14. It was held in Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh , (2019) 4 SCC 522 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 300: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 316 that the testimony of a child witness must be evaluated carefully because the child may be swayed by what was told to him and he is an easy prey for tutoring. It was observed at page 528: “21. The case of the prosecution is mainly dependent on the testimony of Chandni, the child witness, who was examined as PW 8. Section 118 of the Evidence Act governs the competence of the persons to testify, which also includes a child witness. Evidence of the child witness and its credibility could depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no rule of practice that in every case, the evidence of a child witness has to be corroborated by other evidence before a conviction can be allowed to stand, but as prudence, the court always finds it desirable to seek corroboration for such evidence from other reliable evidence placed on record. The only precaution which the court has to bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one. 22. This Court has consistently held that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated carefully as the child may be swayed by what others tell him, and he is easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, the evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it can be relied upon. It is more a rule of practical wisdom than law. [See Panchhi v. State of U.P. [ Panchhi v. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1561 ], State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit [State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit, (2000) 3 SCC 70 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 579] and State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash [State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1210] .] 23. In Alagupandi v. State of T.N. [Alagupandi v. State of T.N., (2012) 10 SCC 451 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1027] , this Court has emphasised the need to accept the testimony of a child with caution after substantial corroboration before acting upon it. It was held that: (SCC p. 463, para 36) “36. It is a settled principle of law that a child witness can be a competent witness provided a statement of such witness is reliable, truthful and corroborated by other prosecution evidence. The court, in such circumstances, can safely rely upon the statement of a child witness, and it can form the basis for conviction as well. Further, the evidence of a child witness and the credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and, his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and that there exists no likelihood of being tutored. There is no rule or practice that in every case, the evidence of such a witness be corroborated by other evidence before a conviction can be allowed to stand, but as a rule of prudence, the court always finds it desirable to seek corroboration to such evidence from other reliable evidence placed on record. Further, it is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable.” 15. It was held in Hari Om v. State of U.P. , (2021) 4 SCC 345: (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 440: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 2 that the Court should evaluate the testimony of a child witness carefully and act upon it after being satisfied with its credibility and reliability. It was observed at page 368: “22. At the outset, we must note the perspective from which the evidence of a child witness is to be considered. The caution expressed by this Court in Suryanarayana [Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 413 ] that “corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence” is a well- accepted principle. The caution expressed by this Court in Suryanarayana [Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 413 ] that “corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence” is a well- accepted principle. While applying said principle to the facts of that case, this Court in Suryanarayana [Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 413] observed: (SCC pp. 133-35, paras 5-9) “5. Admittedly, Bhavya (PW 2), who at the time of occurrence was about four years of age, is the only solitary eyewitness who was rightly not given the oath. The time and place of the occurrence and the attending circumstances of the case suggest no possibility of there being any other person as an eyewitness. The evidence of the child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the court, as a rule of prudence, is required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality of the statements and its reliability, base conviction by accepting the statement of the child witness. The evidence of PW 2 cannot be discarded only on the grounds of her being of tender age. The fact of PW 2 being a child witness would require the court to scrutinise her evidence with care and caution. If she is shown to have stood the test of cross-examination and there is no infirmity in her evidence, the prosecution can rightly claim a conviction based on her testimony alone. Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. Some discrepancies in the statement of a child witness cannot be made the basis for discarding the testimony. Discrepancies in the deposition, if not in material particulars, would lend credence to the testimony of a child witness who, under normal circumstances, would like to mixup what the witness saw with what he or she is likely to imagine to have seen. While appreciating the evidence of the child witness, the courts are required to rule out the possibility of the child being tutored. While appreciating the evidence of the child witness, the courts are required to rule out the possibility of the child being tutored. In the absence of any allegation regarding tutoring or using the child witness for ulterior purposes of the prosecution, the courts have no option but to rely upon the confidence- inspiring testimony of such witness for the purposes of holding the accused guilty or not. 6. This Court in Panchhi v. State of U.P. [Panchhi v. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1561] held that the evidence of the child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus an easy prey to tutoring. The evidence of the child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied upon, as the rule of corroboration is of practical wisdom than of law (vide Prakash v. State of M.P. [Prakash v. State of M.P., (1992) 4 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 853]; Baby Kandayanathil v. State of Kerala [Baby Kandayanathil v. State of Kerala, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 667: 1993 SCC (Cri) 1084]; Raja Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar [Raja Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 287: 1996 SCC (Cri) 1004] and Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra [Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 685] ). 7. To the same effect is the judgment in State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit [State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit, (2000) 3 SCC 70 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 579] .” 16. A similar view was taken in Pramila v. State of U.P., (2021) 12 SCC 550 : (2023) 2 SCC (Cri) 223: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 711 wherein it was observed at page 552 “5. Criminal jurisprudence does not hold that the evidence of a child witness is unreliable and can be discarded. A child who is aged about 11 to 12 years certainly has reasonably developed mental faculties to see, absorb and appreciate. In a given case, the evidence of a child witness alone can also form the basis for conviction. The mere absence of any corroborative evidence in addition to that of the child witness by itself cannot alone discredit a child witness. In a given case, the evidence of a child witness alone can also form the basis for conviction. The mere absence of any corroborative evidence in addition to that of the child witness by itself cannot alone discredit a child witness. But the courts have regularly held that where a child witness is to be considered, and more so when he is the sole witness, a heightened level of scrutiny is called for of the evidence so that the court is satisfied with regard to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence of the child witness. PW 2 was examined nearly one year after the occurrence. The Court has, therefore, to satisfy itself that all possibilities of tutoring or otherwise are ruled out, and what was deposed was nothing but the truth. 6. The evidence of a child witness and the manner of its consideration has been dealt with in State of M.P. v. Ramesh [State of M.P. v. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786: (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 493] , as follows : (SCC p. 792, para 14) “14. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored the court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether the child has been tutored or not can be drawn from the contents of his deposition.” 17. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 777 that the child witness is susceptible to tutoring, and the Court should evaluate the same carefully. It was observed: “ 9. It is a well-settled principle that corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child witness. It was observed: “ 9. It is a well-settled principle that corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child witness. The Court must make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness. The Court must apply its mind to the question whether there is a possibility of the child witness being tutored. Therefore, scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness is required to be made by the Court with care and caution.” 18. Testimonies of the child victim and other witnesses have to be appreciated as per the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 19. The victim stated that the accused had visited the school on 17.09.2018 to teach her class. He asked her to write“Sunday, Monday”. She approached the accused with her copy to show her writing. He asked her the spellings of Sunday and Monday. He lifted her on his lap and touched her private parts from where she urinated. He called her in the office at lunchtime and showed Sapna's dance on the mobile. He again touched her private part from where she urinates. She and her friends returned to the school grounds. She narrated the incident to her elder sister. She stated in her cross-examination that the accused was the only teacher on the date of the incident. Her aunt in village relations was employed as a cook in the school. She (victim) had gone to the accused to get her copy checked before lunchtime. She denied that the accused had a table in front of him. She and her friends had gone to get their copies checked. The accused told her about Sapna's dance and put her on his lap for about two minutes. She had not sustained any injury on her private part. She and her friends went to the office. She had written the statement (Ex. PW-2/B) on her own. She admitted that there was no mention of the occurrence in the office in her statements (Ext. PW-2/B and Mark MT). 20. PW-5 stated that the accused had shown Sapna's dance on his mobile phone to her, her friends and the victim. She had reduced the incident into the writing. She had written the statement (Ex. PW-2/B) on her own. She admitted that there was no mention of the occurrence in the office in her statements (Ext. PW-2/B and Mark MT). 20. PW-5 stated that the accused had shown Sapna's dance on his mobile phone to her, her friends and the victim. She had reduced the incident into the writing. She stated in her cross-examination that she had written what was asked by her teacher, Des Raj (PW-13). 21. It was submitted that the cross-examination of this witness shows that she had written her statement (Ext.PW-6/A) as per the version of Desh Raj (PW-13),and her statement is not believable. This submission is not acceptable. Desh Raj (PW-13) was asked to inquire into the incident. He visited the school, and if he had asked the victim and her friends to reduce the incident into writing in their hands, it could not lead to an inference that he had tutored them to write a doctored version. 22. PW-6 stated that the accused put the victim on his lap. He showed Sapna's dance to her, the victim, and her friends on his mobile phone. She stated in her cross- examination that Sapna's dance was shown in the office room before lunch. She denied that she was making a false statement at the instance of officials of Child Line. 23. PW-15 stated that the accused put the victim on his lap. He showed Sapna's dance on his mobile phone to the victim and her friends. She stated in her cross-examination that the accused had put the victim on his lap in the office. She denied that the victim was her sister. 24. These witnesses have consistently stated that the accused had put the victim on his lap and showed Sapna's dance to the victim and her friends. 25. Dr Minakshi Mahajan (PW-23) analysed the mobile phone of the accused and found pictures of Sapna’s dance and an audio recording in it. Therefore, the testimonies of these witnesses are duly corroborated by the findings of Dr Minakshi Mahajan (PW-23), an independent person and the learned Trial Court had rightly relied upon the victim’s testimony. 26. The victim narrated the incident to her sister (PW-7), who narrated the incident to her mother (PW-1). This provides a valuable corroboration. Therefore, the testimonies of these witnesses are duly corroborated by the findings of Dr Minakshi Mahajan (PW-23), an independent person and the learned Trial Court had rightly relied upon the victim’s testimony. 26. The victim narrated the incident to her sister (PW-7), who narrated the incident to her mother (PW-1). This provides a valuable corroboration. The victim's mother narrated the incident to her husband (PW-3), who informed the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Narinder Thakur (PW-10) on 18.09.2018. The prompt report of the incident by the victim to her sister, as independently confirmed by Narinder Thakur (PW-10), provides valuable corroboration to the testimony of the victim. 27. The victim stated that the accused had put her on his lap when she went to show him the spelling of Sunday Monday and touched her private part. She also stated that Sapna’s dance was shown to her in the office, where the accused put her on his lap and touched her inappropriately. According to her, two incidents had taken place: one in the classroom and another in the office. The incident regarding the office is duly corroborated by her friends. They have consistently stated that the accused exhibited Sapna's Dance, lifted the victim, put her on his lap, and touched her inappropriately. 28. It was submitted that the eyewitnesses have not stated anything about the incident in the classroom, and they are consistent that the incident had taken place in the office. This casts a serious dent in the prosecution’s case. This submission is not acceptable. It was suggested to the victim that the accused had a table in front of him, which is also probable. The table would have made it difficult for the other students to see the activities of the accused, and the prosecution case cannot be discarded because other witnesses could not see the accused molesting the victim. 29. It was stated that the victim had not mentioned that the incident had taken place in the office in her initial statement (Ext.PW-2/C), and this is fatal to the prosecution’s case. This submission is not acceptable.The victim is a minor child studying in class fourth. She can barely write, as is apparent from her statement (Ext.PW-2/C). 29. It was stated that the victim had not mentioned that the incident had taken place in the office in her initial statement (Ext.PW-2/C), and this is fatal to the prosecution’s case. This submission is not acceptable.The victim is a minor child studying in class fourth. She can barely write, as is apparent from her statement (Ext.PW-2/C). The significance of narrating the incident in detail would have been lost to her, and her testimony cannot be discarded simply because she had failed to mention the office as the place where the dance was shown to her. 30. The accused stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that a false case was made against him because of civil litigation between his brother and the victim’s family. This statement does not explain why a false case should be made against the accused and not against his brother, with whom the civil dispute is pending. Rattan Chand (DW-1) produced the civil dispute register, in which proceedings between the victim's father’s maternal aunt (Maasi) and the nephew of the accused were recorded. His statement shows that the dispute was between the maternal aunt of the victim’s father and the nephew of the accused; therefore, the nephew of the accused would have been implicated by the maternal aunt and not by the victim. Hence, this evidence does not provide any motive for the false implication. 31. Samasdeen (DW-2) stated that he had built the house on land exchanged with the victim's mother. The water from the house of the accused was falling on the land, which was exchanged in his favour. This evidence also does not help the accused. There is no evidence that the victim’s family was residing on the land. Mark DX shows that the exchange occurred in the year 2004, and there was hardly any reason to falsely implicate the accused in the year 2018 over the land, which was exchanged in the year 2004. Therefore, this evidence will not help the accused. 32. It was submitted that there was a dispute between the teachers, and the accused was falsely implicated. This is not acceptable. The accused was deputed to the school on 17.09.2018 and 18.09.2018 because the regular teacher could not attend the school due to illness. Therefore, this evidence will not help the accused. 32. It was submitted that there was a dispute between the teachers, and the accused was falsely implicated. This is not acceptable. The accused was deputed to the school on 17.09.2018 and 18.09.2018 because the regular teacher could not attend the school due to illness. The accused was deputed only for two days, and he was not even a regular teacher, which would prompt the other teachers to have a dispute with him so as to falsely implicate him. Hence, this submission will not help the accused. 33. The learned Trial Court had rightly held that the victim’s testimony was duly corroborated by the independent circumstances, and the learned Trial Court had rightly believed the same to convict the accused. 34. The learned Trial Court had sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and three years for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 354-A of IPC. Section 10 provides the minimum imprisonment of five years, and the learned Trial Court had taken a lenient view in the matter while imposing the sentence. Learned Trial Court had also sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 354-A of IPC. Considering that the accused was a teacher of the victim and supposed to protect her, no leniency could have been shown to him; hence, the sentence of three years is not excessive, and no interference is required with it. 35. No other point was urged. 36. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and the same is dismissed. 37. A copy of this judgment along with the record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.