The court emphasized that a minor's consent is invalid, and the accused's knowledge of the victim's age was immaterial in determining guilt under POCSO Act and Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal has been filed by the accused challenging his conviction by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special (POCSO) Case No.21 of 2015, dated 25-07-2017, thereby holding him guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 363, 366 (A), 376 (2) (i) of Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’).

2. The prosecution has come with a case that, informant was residing with his family and accused was also residing in his family at the relevant period. There is absolutely no relationship between the accused and the informant. Victim is the daughter of informant who was then i.e. on 28-05-2015 was aged 15 years 03 months. The victim left the house at about 7.30 p.m. on 27-05-2015 without informing anything to the family members. The family members made inquiry with her friends but could not get any clue. Thereafter inquiry was made with the employer of the accused where he was working, and at that time it was found that he is also missing and, therefore, the informant lodged report stating that the minor girl has been kidnapped from his custody by accused.

3. On the basis of the said First Information Report, offence under Section 363 and 366 (A) of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered vide Crime No.134 of 2015 with Tuljapur Police Station and investigation was started.

4. Search for the accused and the victim was made for about 15 days and, thereafter, Tuljapur Police informed that the victim has been found at Solapur Railway Station with accused. After the police brought the victim to police station, her statement was recorded, and when it was revealed that the accused had sexual intercourse with her, the offence under Section 376 (2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of POCSO Act came to be added. Victim and accused were referred to medical examination. Panchanama of the spot was carried out. Statements of other witnesses were recorded. The clothes of the victim as well as accused were seized. Evidence in respect of age of the victim was collected, and accused came to be arrested. After the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Special Judge.

5. The accused has been produced before the learned Special Judge. He was on bail from 02-06-2016. Charge has been framed at Exhibit 03 against him and, thereafter, the same was altered on 27-04-2017. He pleaded not guilty and trial has been conducted. Prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. The defence of the accused is of total denial and the fact that he had extended some amount to the informant as loan, and when he demanded the said amount back, he has been falsely implicated in order to avoid the payment. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge has held the accused guilty. Accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code. He has been further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 366 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. He has been further convicted and directed to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code. All the substantive sentences are directed to be run concurrently. This conviction is under challenge in this appeal.

6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. S. Kazi for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar for res