IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish the victim's age as a minor to sustain charges under the POCSO Act and relevant sections of the IPC; inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to reasonable doubt and acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, putting to challenge a judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2021 and an order of sentence dated 27.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Exclusive Judge, (POCSO), Aurangabad in POCSO (G.R.) No. 03 of 2017/ CIS No. 03 of 2017, arising out of Goh P.S. Case No. 83 of 2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. The victim's (PW-3's) father (PW-2) is the informant of Goh P.S. Case No. 83 of 2016 registered on 10.08.2016, which gave rise to POCSO (G.R.) No. 03 of 2017/CIS No. 03 of 2017, disclosing commission of offence punishable under Section 366A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. His written report handed over to the Officer-in-Charge of the said police station on 10.08.2016 is the basis for registration of the said FIR. The occurrence is of 11.07.2016. It would be relevant to notice, at this juncture, that the FIR does not disclose commission of any sexual assault and the allegation is confined to kidnapping of the victim (PW-3) by the appellant and others, which is one of the crucial aspects of the present case as would emerge from the discussions herein-below.

3. The informant alleged the victim's age to be 14 years in the First Information Report. The only evidence available on record as regards the victim's age is based on medical examination, according to which her age was found to be 18-19 years.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to give a detailed description of the accusation made in the FIR which is the earliest version of the prosecution and, therefore, significant for just adjudication of this appeal. According to the informant, he received a telephone call on his mobile No. 7482857047 from mobile No. 7542949873 on 11.07.2016 at 3:00 PM cautioning the informant that he would kidnap his daughter. On the next day i.e. 12.07.2016 his daughter (the victim) had gone for her studies in a school but did not return after the school timings were over. The informant and the relatives started searching for her but she could not be traced. Subsequently, the informant received another call on his same mobile No. 7482857047 from mobile No. 7582852900 when the caller informed him that he was taking the victim away for marriage and in case the informant made any attempt to locate her, he would be losing his daughter. The informant (PW-2) called his son-in-law Sudhir Kumar (not examined) to find out the person in whose name said SIM No. 7582852900 was registered. The informant's son-in-law got an information that the said SIM was in the name of one Gyanti Devi, the wife of the appellant. The informant is said to have gone to the house of the said Gyanti Devi, the appellant's wife and upon enquiry the appellant's wife told him that the appellant was in habit of kidnapping minor girls and abandoning the girls after committing rape on them. Few days thereafter, the informant got an information from the co-villagers of the appellant that the appellant was residing in Amritsar. The informant, along with other persons, went to Amritsar in search of her daughter and after taking assistance of the Amritsar police he was successful in locating the appellant and the victim together. The informant, thereafter, made enquiries from the victim. Initially, the victim told the informant that she had come to Amritsar out of her own volition but, on further enquiry, the victim disclosed in confidence that this appellant and his three friends had kidnapped her for marriage and thereafter the appellant pressurized the victim for