Alok Kumar Pandey, J. – The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2022 and order of sentence dated 08.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th cum Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as POCSO), Bettiah, West Champaran in Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 121 of 2015, CIS No. 04/2018 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and under Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo ten years imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 366A of the IPC, to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine he has to suffer two months additional imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The name of informant and victim have been concealed in the present judgment to protect their prestige and dignity.

3. A written report submitted to S.H.O., Ramnagar Thana, Bagha, West Champaran under the thumb impression of informant is the basis for registration of First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as FIR).

4. According to written report of informant (PW-9), the occurrence is of 08.06.2015 at about 7:00 PM for which information was given on 10.06.2015 at 17 hours and immediately whereafter FIR was registered. The prosecution case in brief is that victim (daughter of informant/PW-3) aged about 14 years was kidnapped by the appellant with intention of marriage. It is further claimed that appellant was present at his house till morning of 09.06.2015. It is further claimed on the basis of communication held between informant and appellant that informant’s daughter would reach at her house. It is further stated that mobile number as mentioned in the FIR was available with daughter of informant (PW-3).

5. On the basis of written report of informant, Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 121 of 2015 was initially registered under Section 366(A) of the IPC and later on Sections 376/34 of IPC and 4 of POCSO Act were added. Routine investigation followed. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on completion of investigation appellant along with acquitted accused namely Imran Ali came to be charge sheeted under Sections 366A, 376/34 of the IPC and 4 of POCSO Act. Rest others were not sent up for trial. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance for the said offences against the accused persons and pleased to frame charges for the above stated offences. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home guilt of the accused persons, prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses. PW-1 Lal Babu Prasad, PW-2 Subash Gupta, PW-3 (victim), PW-4 Achchelal Sah, PW-5 Dhruv Prasad, PW-6 Afroj Alam, PW-7 Sonal Sah, PW-8 Dr. Rashmi, PW-9 (informant). Defence of the accused persons as gathered from the line of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total denial. However, they did not enter in the defence.

7. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the appellant-accused and to sentence him as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment. However, coaccused Imran Ali stood acquitted by the learned trial court by the same judgment.

8. Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey learned counsel appearing for the appellant at sufficient length of time. Following submissions were made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant: –

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution completely failed to discharge its onus of proving beyond all reasonable