The central legal point established in the judgment is the stringent burden of proof required in cases involving offences against minors, emphasizing the necessity of credible evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Prakash D. Naik, J. - The appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 20th October 2016 passed by additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.258 of 2015 whereby appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant was also convicted for offence under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 3 years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. He is further convicted for the offence under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The prosecution case is as under :-

(a) The victim girl was aged around 15 years and 9 months on the date of incident. The report was lodged on 12th June 2015 alleging that victim girl was missing from Saptashrungi Gadh. The first informant is the mother of victim girl. On 12th June 2015 the informant received a phone call from Pimpalgaon Baswant Police that victim girl is found at Pimpalgaon Baswant. The informant approached the said Police Station;

(b) The victim girl informed the complainant that accused had kidnapped her from Saptashrungi Gadh and took her to Satana. She was kept in agricultural field and the accused had sexual intercourse with her by threatening her;

(c) The accused is a married person and he kidnapped the victim girl who was minor and sexually assaulted her;

(d) The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences act (`POCSO act'). The investigation was transferred to Kalvan Police Station vide CR No.48 of 2015;

(e) Statements of victim girl and witnesses were recorded. On completing investigation charge sheet was filed.

3. Charge was framed against accused by order dated 4th January 2016 under Sections 363, 366, 37692)(i) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO act.

4. The prosecution had examined six witnesses. PW-1 is the victim girl. PW-2 Shakuntala Kambli is mother of the victim girl. PW-3 Dhanraj Wagh is panch witness for recovery of clothes of victim. PW-4 Dr.Vaibhav Dhoom is the medical officer who examined the victim girl. PW-5 ankush Borate is assistant Sub Inspector. He conducted investigation. PW-6 Dr.Pramod Chaudhari is the medical officer who had examined victim girl.

5. Learned advocate for appellant has submitted that no offences are made out against appellant. The age of victim was not proved. There is no evidence to show that victim was minor. The evidence of witnesses suffers from serious doubt. There is no evidence to establish that the victim was kidnapped by the appellant. The evidence of witnesses suffers from omissions and contradictions all the witnesses are interested witnesses and prosecution has not examined any independent witness to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of witnesses did not inspire confidence. The relationship was consensual.

6. Learned advocate for appellant has relied upon following decisions :

(i) Ittarsingh Janklal Dahikar Vs. State of Maharashtra aIROnline-2018-Bom-1239;

(ii) Bharat Vitthal Shete Vs. Rohidas Manaji Wahelkar & others Writ Petitionj No.4529 of 2011 decided on 11-7-2012;

(iii) State of Uttarakhand Vs. Mohan Lal and others aIROnline-2021-Utr-86;

(iv) Pramod Dattatray Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra 2019-aLL MR (Cri)-1742

(v) Naresh Sonkusare Vs. The State of Maharashtra2006-aLL MR (Cri)-2099;

(vi) abhishek Ganpat Munarkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another Criminal appeal No.255 of 2020, decided on 1st December 2021.

(vii) Ravi anandrao Gurpude Vs. State of Maharashtra 2017-aLL MR (Cri)-1509.

7. Learned aPP submit that version of victim girl establishes guilt of the accused for the offences for which he has been convicted. The accused was married person. He had suppressed the said fact from the victim and subjected her to sexual intercour