Manish Pitale JUDGMENT
Manish Pitale, J.
1. The appellant herein has challenged his conviction under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 452 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for which he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for periods of 10 years, 2 years and 7 years respectively with the sentences running concurrently, as also to pay fine amounts of Rs. 5,000/- on each count. The Special Court at Akola (trial Court) has awarded the aforesaid sentences against the appellant/accused in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2013.
2. The prosecution case before the trial Court was that the victim in this case (PW6) was 16 years old when incident in question occurred on 28.04.2013. He was staying in hostel in village Vanoja and studying in 7th standard in Shivaji Vidyalaya. But, at the relevant time he had come to Akola to stay with his uncle. The house belonging to the father of the victim was located in Parvati Nagar, Akola, where his father used to live alone as his mother was working and residing at Surat. According to the prosecution case, on 28.04.2013, when the victim had gone to his house at Parvati Nagar at about 10 a.m., there was nobody in the house and that when the victim entered his house, the accused i.e. the appellant herein, a resident of the neighbourhood, followed him into the house and started a conversation with the victim.
3. Upon the victim entering into one of the rooms of the house, the appellant entered the same, closed the door and caught hold of the victim. Thereafter the appellant took of his pant and underwear and those of the victim and committed forcible anal sexual intercourse with the victim. Thereafter, the appellant put on his clothes and went away. The victim then narrated the incident to his uncle upon which the uncle approached the Police Station submitting a report, leading to registration of first information report (FIR) against the appellant on 28.04.2013 itself in Police Station, Old City, Akola, for offences under the provisions of the POCSO Act and the IPC.
4. The Police undertook investigation, preparing spot panchanama. The victim as well as the appellant were sent for medical examination and upon seizure of the clothes and other items of the victim as well as the appellant, the same were sent for chemical analysis. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating officer (PW7) submitted charge sheet, upon which the appellant was charged with having committed aforesaid offences.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses of whom the material witnesses were PW2 Ramesh Ahir, the uncle of the victim who took the victim to the Police Station for registration of offence against the appellant, PW6 the victim himself, PW7 Satish Farkade, the investigating officer and PW8 Dr. Ashwin, the doctor who had examined the victim. The other witnesses were the panch witnesses for spot panchanama and seizure memo as also Head Master of the School where the victim was studying, so as to prove his date of birth. There were two defence witnesses examined by the appellant in support of his defence, DW1 Manisha Ratnaparkhi being a neighbour and DW2 Sanjay Bopulkar, who also knew the appellant and his family.
6. The defence of the appellant was that there had been a quarrel on 27.04.2013, a day prior to the date of the alleged incident between the appellant and the victim's uncle, wherein the appellant had slapped the victim. According to the appellant, this had led to the victim and his uncle falsely implicating the appellant in the present case. This was the nature of the explanation given by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section ........