John Michael Cunha, J.

This appeal is by the sole accused who is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter called as ‘POCSO Act’). He is sentenced to life imprisonment i.e., 14 years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and rigorous imprisonment of five years each and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC.

2. The victim of the offence was a minor girl aged about 17 years as on the date of the incident. According to the prosecution, accused was residing in the neighbourhood and was driving a Tata Ape vehicle belonging to one Basavaraj Ningappa Hanchinamani. He used to pickup and drop the villagers. He developed intimacy with the victim who was also traveling in the said vehicle. The father of the victim had even warned the accused not to take liberty with the victim girl. On 02.04.2013, the victim girl along with her mother had been to the market at Kalaghatagi. The accused met the victim as well as her mother in the said market. After a while, when the mother of the victim had gone inside the market to purchase vegetables, the accused enticed the victim girl and took her to Harihar and from there he took her to Balehonnur and stayed for two nights in a Mutt. During this period, he committed intercourse on the victim.

3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the father of the victim on 12.04.2013, a case came to be registered against the accused under Section 366 (A) of IPC. On 13.04.2013, the accused and the victim girl were traced and were produced before the PSI of Kalaghatagi P.S. They were subjected to medical examination. On the basis of the statement of the victim, charge under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were incorporated and a charge sheet was laid against the accused for the above offences.

4. The accused denied the charges and faced trial. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the victim of the offence as PW.1 and her father as PW.2. The prosecution also produced in evidence 20 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 and the material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.17. In rebuttal, the accused examined himself as DW.1 and examined two other witnesses on his behalf as DW.2 and DW.3.

5. Considering the above evidence and on hearing the respective counsels appearing for the parties, by the impugned judgment, the trial Court convicted the accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(i) and (n) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, considering the alternate punishment prescribed under Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the trial Court found it appropriate to sentence the accused only under Section 363 and 366 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and accordingly imposed the sentence as above.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the above appeal.

7. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Srinand A. Pachhapure appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional SPP Sri.V.M.Banakar appearing on behalf of the State.

8. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant – accused has raised two fold contentions namely:

(i) The genesis of the crime is suppressed by the prosecution. The evidence on record indicates that the victim was in love with the accused. She was pressurizing the accused to marry her. She eloped with the accused on her own accord. Even after she was traced by the Police, she refused to return to her parents, making it evident that on her own accord she accompanied the accused and stayed with him. Therefore, the conviction of the accused under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC is wholly illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution does not s