JUDGMENT :

BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is against conviction. The sole appellant faced trial before learned Special Judge, POCSO, East Champaran in POCSO Trial No. 47 of 2017 corresponding to CIS No. 47 of 2017, arising out of Raxaul P.S. Case No. 242 of 2016.

By the impugned judgment dated 14.11.2019, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. By the impugned order of sentence dated 19.11.2019, one month simple imprisonment was awarded for offence under Section 341 IPC, 6 months imprisonment was awarded for offence under Section 323 IPC and 6 years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded for offence under Section 366 IPC. Four years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded for offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The learned trial Judge acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 376(D) and 504 IPC.

2. PW-1 Shankar Sah initially filed a complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul vide complaint case no. 240 of 2016 on 22.09.2016 which was transmitted by the Magistrate for institution of a police case on 25.10.2016 and accordingly the F.I.R. of Raxaul P.S. Case No. 242 of 2016 was registered on 03.11.2016 for offences under Sections 366A, 376, 323, 341 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 4 and 5 of the POCSO Act.

3. According to complaint based F.I.R. the minor daughter of the informant aged about 14 years who was a student of class VIII in Phulchand Sah Middle School, Raxaul had gone to attend call of nature at 7 P.M. on 18.09.2016. At that time, appellant and other six named who are father and siblings of the appellant forcefully kidnapped her with intent to ravish her. When the complainant asked the accused persons about where-about of his daughter, they started hurling abuses and committed assault. The complainant went to the police station, but the police refused to register the case, hence complaint petition was filed on 22.09.2016 after recovery of the victim girl on 21.09.2016 in unconscious condition near railway crossing. On gaining consciousness, the victim disclosed that she was taken to Nepal by the kidnappers.

4. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and investigation against others was kept pending. During trial, prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. All are witnesses of the occurrence. The investigating officer or the doctor who had medically examined the victim were not produced before the Court nor any medical evidence is there.

5. PW-1 Shankar Sah deposed that the victim girl had gone to ease on the date of occurrence at about 7 PM when she was kidnapped. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that he had not seen the occurrence. The witness denied any love affairs between the victim and the appellant, however is specific that he does not want to proceed with the criminal case as he has already married the victim with some other man.

PW-2 Rajesh Kumar Sah is a hearsay witness on the occurrence of kidnapping. However he is specific that he does not know who had kidnapped to the daughter of Shankar Sah. The witness is not a hostile witness.

PW-3 Ashok Sah deposed that he knows nothing about the occurrence. Though the witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, but his statement before the police was also as a hearsay witness.

PW-4 Krishna Sah has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The cross-examination of the witness also reveals that he was a hearsay witness of the occurrence.

PW-5 Urmila Devi has deposed that there was relationship between the daughter of the informant Shankar Sah and the appellant since before and for that reason quarrel had taken place between the two families. The witness is specific that she had seen the daughter of the informant going along with the appellant. The