Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned APP for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 by judgment dated 07.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -6th -cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with P. Trial No. 14/2022, CIS No. 264/21 arising out of Govindganj P.S. Case No. 340/2021. By order dated 20.07.2023, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer S.I. for ten days for the offence under Sections 363 IPC; R.I. for ten years, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for ten days for the offence under Section 366 IPC; R.I. for ten years, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for ten days for the offence under Section 366 (A) IPC and ; R.I for twenty years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer S.I. for ten days for the offence under Section 4 (2) of the POCSO Act, 2012. The sentences, however, were directed to run concurrently.

3. The grand-mother of the victim (PW4) had lodged her written report addressed to the Officer-in- Charge of Govindganj Police Station in the district of East Champaran, Motihari on 01.11.2021 that her granddaughter who had been residing with her was kidnapped on 30.10.2021 by the appellant and four others. Her granddaughter was in possession of a mobile telephone bearing number 9771921958. The accused persons, all this while had been calling her from different telephone numbers, intimating her that they have kidnapped her granddaughter. Similar telephone calls had come to the mother of the victim as well.

4. On the basis of the afore-noted written report, a case vide Govindganj P.S. Case No. 340/2021 dated 01.11.2021 was registered for investigation under Section 363, 365, 366(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

5. The police sent up only the appellant for trial.

6. The Trial Court after having examined seven witnesses on behalf of the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid and also granted compensation to the victim.

7. The grandmother (PW4) supported the prosecution case at the trial in as much as she asserted that her granddaughter was kidnapped after she had gone to attend a Shradh feast in her neighbourhood. She also spoke about the telephone calls of accused persons, masquerading themselves, from different telephone numbers. She was not in a position to state about any particular telephone number from which such calls had come. After about two hours of her coming to know about the kidnapping, she had called the parents of the victim. Later, on the next day, the written report was filed. According to PW4, the victim was recovered after nine days. She was not even aware as to who had drafted the written report on which the subject case was registered.

8. The victim claims herself to be fourteen years old. The Trial Court assessed her capabilities of making cogent statement at the trial and on being satisfied, recorded her statement. While narrating the incident before the Trial Court, the victim frequently burst into tears. According to her, appellant and others kidnapped her from Sikatia and brought her to Raniganj where she was kept in a friend’s house whose name she could not know. All the accused persons, five in number, are said to have raped her. One person, namely, the appellant wanted to marry her. Thereafter, the victim alleged the appellant and two women accompanied her to Punjab where she was confined in a room. For the period that she was in confinement, the appellant used to sedate her by giving some injection to her. When she regained her consciousness on o