The reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, the importance of correctly framing charges, and granting the accused an opportunity to defend against the charges were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

A. S. Gadkari, J. - The Appellant (Original Accused No.1), has impugned Judgment and Order dated 20th January, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the POCSO Act, Ichalkaranji, convicting him under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months; under Section 366 of the IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for 9 months; and also convicting him for the offence under Section 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, "the POCSO Act") and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year. The Trial Court has not awarded separate sentence under Section 376 of the IPC in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court has also directed that, all the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

Kiran Mahadev Mokashi, Original Accused No.2 (for short, " Org. A-2") has been acquitted by the Trial Court from all the charges by the same impugned Judgment and Order.

2. Heard Mr. Apte, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Hulke, learned APP for the State. Perused entire record.

3. As per prosecution, the prosecutrix was aged about 13 to 14 years on the date of commission of alleged offence i.e. on 4th July, 2013 and with a view to protect her identity and in consonance with the provisions of Section 228(A) of the IPC and Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act, the names of material witnesses and detailed narration of facts mentioned in the evidence of the prosecutrix and relevant witnesses is hereby avoided.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that:-

(i) The Appellant was working in the office of Mr. Kiran Mokashi (Org. A-2). Mr. Kiran Mokashi was working as an agent of a Co-operative Society. Prosecutrix (P.W. No.2) along with her father (P.W. No.1) and other family members was residing in the house of Mr. Kiran Mokashi (Org. A-2). The Appellant was residing adjacent to the house of P.W. No.1. The record indicates that, the prosecutrix was acquainted with the Appellant due to the said reason. The prosecutrix had left education after passing out of Class 8th examination. Father of the prosecutrix was running a power-loom factory of one Mr. Badashaha Mujawar on rent, which was situated at Kagawade Mala, Ichalkaranji. The prosecutrix was doing household work and also cleaning work in the said factory to help her father.

(ii) That, on 4th July, 2013, at about 1.30 to 2.00 p.m., prosecutrix along with her uncle namely Iresh Gobbur had been to the said factory for cleaning it. Her father thereafter went for having lunch. The prosecutrix did not return to house upto 4.30 to 5.00 p.m.. Despite taking search of the prosecutrix with her friends and relatives, she could not be traced. Her father, Bamlingappa S. Jeur (P.W.No.1) therefore, lodged a missing complaint (Exh.27) with Shivajinagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji on 6th July, 2013.

(iii) While taking search of prosecutrix, Mr. Kiran Mokashi (Org. A-2) told P.W. No.1 that, the Appellant and his daughter were talking on phone, when they had been to Barshi. The father of prosecutrix therefore, got suspicion about Appellant, who was also missing from 4th July, 2013. He, therefore, again went to Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji and lodged a complaint (Exh.28) under Sections 363, 366(A) read with Section 34 of the IPC. The said complaint was registered as CR No. 85 of 2013.

(iv) It is the further prosecution case that, on 4th July, 2013, the Appellant induced, lured and with a promise to marry prosecutrix, initially took her at Borgaon