V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

1. By the present appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Warora in Special (POCSO) Case No. 05 of 2015 on 27.4.2016. By the impugned judgment, the appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 5(1) punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POSCO Act” for short) and for that he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for eight months. He is also convicted for the offence puishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Similarly, he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(a) punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, however no separate sentence was awarded for the same. The Court below has directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Initially, the appellant along with one Pramod Wasnik were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code so also under Section 3(a) read with Section 5(1) and under Section 4 punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and also under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. However, by the impugned judgment, the Court below has acquitted the original accused no. 2 Pramod Wasnik from all the charges. Though, accused Pramod Wasnik is acquitted from all the charges, the State has not preferred any appeal challenging his acquittal.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is as under:

Victim PW-1, a minor girl, was kidnapped by the appellant and she was taken from one place to another and during the stay of about nine days, the appellant committed sexual intercourse against her wish.

4. Since, the victim failed to return to the house, her mother Smt. Kaushalyabai (PW-4) initially took the help of her relatives to trace her daughter, however, in vain. Therefore, on 20.10.2014, she lodged her oral report with Police Station, Chimur (Exh.32) on the basis of which a crime was registered vide Crime No. 115 of 2014 under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. The investigation was conducted by API Moreshwar Meshram (PW-9). He has done all the investigation and filed the chargesheet in the Court of law.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, in all nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Ku. S.B. Khobragade that in the present case, the victim (PW-1) herself was a consenting party and she on her own eloped with the appellant and therefore, she cannot be said to have been kidnapped by the appellant. It is also her submission that though, for good nine days the victim girl was staying with the appellant and though, she was having all opportunity to resist and to point out that against her wish the appellant has taken her from one place to another and has committed sexual intercourse against her wish, the same has not been done. According to the learned counsel, that shows that the victim has extended her consent for having sexual relations with the appellant. It is also submitted that there is a delay in lodging the first information report and therefore, the false implication at the behest of the victim and her mother cannot be ruled out, especially when during their cross-examination, it was suggested to them that there was some mo