Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.—Heard Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The present appeal preferred by above named appellant/convict challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.09.2022 and order for sentence dated 23.09.2022 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 44/2018 arising out of Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 504/2018, whereby and whereunder learned District and Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special POCSO Judge, Jehanabad convicted the appellant under Sections 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (In short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (in short ‘POCSO’) convicting the appellant under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo RI for seven (07) years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) in default of payment of fine, further to undergo SI for six (06) months, further appellant also convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for whole life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo SI for six (06) months. Appellant was also convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for whole life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine further to undergo SI for six (06) months.

3. The crux of prosecution case as it appears from the written information/ferdbeyan of informant Nishant Kumar (PW-1), who is the uncle of victim (PW-6) that her niece a student of class-IX, aged about 14 years is missing since 18.06.2018. He tried his best to search his niece/victim (PW-6), but he failed in his search and subsequently, on 20.06.2018, his friend, namely, Suryadeo Prasad (PW-4) told him that he saw his niece/victim (PW-6) on 16.06.2018 at about 8:00 AM at Patna Junction along with Pawan Kumar (appellant/convict), son of Satrughan Singh resident of mohalla Shyamnagar, district- Jehanabad. On the basis of said information, informant (PW-1) went to residence of appellant/convict and asked about his whereabouts from his parents, where he came to know that appellant/convict is also missing since 15.06.2018, for which information in writing was also given to Jehanabad Police Station. Informant (PW-1) expressed his suspicions that his niece/victim (PW-6) was kidnapped by appellant/convict, namely, Pawan Kumar for purpose of marriage.

4. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against appellant/convict vide charge-sheet no. 492/2018 dated 30.09.2018 under Section 366-A/376 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, where charges were also framed under Section 366-A and 376 of Indian Penal Code against appellant/convict alongwith Section 4 of the POCSO Act on 25.04.2019. Aforesaid charges were duly explained to appellant/convict, where he pleaded “not guilty” and claimed trial.

5. To establish its case before the learned trial court the prosecution altogether examined total of eight (08) witnesses, namely, Nishant Kumar (PW-1), Mother of the victim (PW-2), Father of victim (PW-3), Surya Deo Prasad (PW-4), Dr. Binod Kumar (PW-5), Victim (PW-6), Dr. Nahid Sirin (PW-7) and Durgesh Kumar Gehlout (PW-8), who is Investigating Officer of this case.

6. The prosecutions also exhibited the following documents during the trial which are as:—

1. Exhibit 1—Written application

2. Exhibit 2—Medical Report

3. Exhibit 3—Signature of the victim on 164 Cr.P.C. statement

4. Exhibit 4—Forwarding on the written application

5. Exhibit 5—Formal FIR

6. Exhibit 6—Memo of arrested

7. Exhibit 7—Transit Remand

8. Exhibit 8—Date of birth certificate

9. Exhibit 9—Medical Requisition for victim

7. After closure of the prosecution case, the statement of appellant/convict was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (In short ‘Cr.P.C.’), where he shows his complete innocence by denying all incriminating circumstances explained to him.

8. No witness was examined in defence d