On a reading of the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., clearly shows that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault. From the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.P3-statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C,it is clear that the appellant has committed penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 3 of POCSO Act. The defence counsel has stated that the person one who has taken the victim boy to the appellant's house was not examined. The said person is also a minor and he was aged about 13 years, therefore, mere non-examination of the minor boy may not be the sole ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. In this case, there is no eye witness except the minor boy who took the victim to the appellant's house. Since the minor boy also committed the same offence as done by the appellant, in order to safeguard his future, the police might not have examined as witness and also not brought to him in the picture. In cases of this nature, no eye witness can be expected to be available and taking advantage of loneliness of children, persons try to exploit them sexually by providing things which they like. The appellant has shown video games to the victim and subsequently he has committed penetrative sexual assault on him. Therefore, mere non-examination of independent witnesses may not be
