Sangitrao S. Patil, J.

The appellant has challenged the vires of the judgment and order dated 29.03.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 365 of 2014 by the learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar, convicting him for the offence under Section 3 punishable under section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act", for short) and for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C.", for short), sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 366-A of the I.P.C., besides amount of fine of Rs. 5,000/- on each count, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months on each count. Since the appellant has been sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, no separate sentence has been passed in respect of the offence punishable under section 376(2)(f) of the I.P.C. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The appellant has not deposited the fine amount.

2. On 08.06.2014, at about at about 8.30 p.m., the appellant, who is cousin maternal uncle of the victim girl, called her to Paithan Road at Shevgaon, Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar and kidnapped her with an intent to perform marriage with her. He resided with her till 30.07.2014 at various places and during that period, he committed sexual intercourse with her. She was aged about 17 years at that time. On the report of the victim girl, Crime No. 213 of 2014 came to be registered against him in Police Station Shevgaon on 16.08.2014. The investigation followed. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The victim girl was medically examined. After completion of the investigation, the appellant came to be prosecuted for the above mentioned offences. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to establish guilt of the appellant. The learned Special Judge, after scrutiny of the evidence produced by the prosecution, held the appellant guilty of the said offences and convicted and sentenced him, as stated above.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the victim girl was the only material witness to state as to how and why she left the house of her parents, where she resided after leaving her parental home and what happened to her during the period till she came back to her parental home. However, the prosecution has not examined the victim girl on the lame excuse that she was not traceable. He submits that the evidence of the parents of the victim girl is not sufficient to connect the appellant with the above mentioned offences in the absence of evidence of the victim girl. He submits that the age of the victim girl also has been proved to be below 18 years during the above mentioned period. According to him, the delay in lodging the report has not been explained by the prosecution. This unexplained delay is fatal to the prosecution. He submits that the learned trial Judge has wrongly held the appellant guilty of the above mentioned offences. He, therefore, prays that the impugned judgment and order may be set aside.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP supports the impugned judgment and order. He submits that the victim girl could not be examined, but according to him, the evidence of the parents of the victim girl is sufficient to prove that it is the appellant only, who took her with him and had sexual intercourse with her. He submits that the medical evidence shows that the victim girl was pregnant when she came back to her parental home. Therefore, inference has been rightly drawn by the trial Court that it is because of the sexual intercourse committed by the appellant that she became pregnant. He states that the evidence of the Headmaster of the school, where the victim girl was studying, shows that the date of her birth was 23.02.1997. As such, she was of below 18 years of age at the time of the incide