is his submission that though he does not dispute age of victim, he questions the judgment as according to him, offence under Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act does not get attracted, rather at the most, offence under Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act gets attracted. In support of such contentions, he took this Court through the evidence of PW1 mother and PW2 grandmoher of victim as well as evidence of PW4 Dr.Nagawade and notings of medical expert i.e. more particularly, paragraph 4 of cross-examination. He tried to argue that PW1 mother reported insertion of finger in anus but prosecution’s own witness PW2 grandmother speaks about vaginal penetration and as such according to him, prosecution evidence is inconsistent. Lastly, it is his submission that there is improvisation as well as exaggeration and as such according to him, the FIR, which is lodged after delay of one day and that too by PW1 mother of the victim, who has mere hearsay information, ought not to have been straightway accepted by the learned trial Judge and hence, he seeks indulgence at the hands of this Court in overturning the findings of the trial Court.
