The prosecution must prove foundational facts, including the victim's age and the occurrence of the alleged crime, beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Jitendra Kumar, J.)

The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2022 and 26.11.2022, respectively passed by Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIth-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Samastipur in connection with T.R. No. 118 of 2022/R.N. No. 02/2014, arising out of Samastipur (Rail) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2014, whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to pay the fine, to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for three months and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 40,000/- under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and in default to pay the fine, to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment of six months. No separate sentence has been passed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the provision of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The FIR bearing Samastipur (Rail) P.S Case No. 02 of 2014 was registered on 08.01.2014 at 15:00 O’clock on the written report of the informant Bhola Singh against seven accused persons viz, Rajendra Singh, Ramji Singh, Jitni Devi, Rajni, Krishna Singh, Ganesh Singh and Om Prakash for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as emerging from the written report of the Informant, Bhola Singh, resident of village Dobo, P.S. Chandil, District-Saraikela address to In-charge Kapali O.P. (Chandil) Police Station is that co-village Rajendra Singh, son of Ramji Singh, used to molesting of his 15 years old daughter while going to school and used to put intimidate her to keep this thing secret. His daughter is a student of 8th class at DAB Girls High School, Sonari, Kagal Nagar, Jamshedpur and during the winter vacation, he sent his daughter to his village on 22.12.2013 by Tata-Chapra train along with his younger son Abhishek Kumar and son of sadu (husband of wife sister) Jitendra Prasad. In the meantime, the said Rajendra Singh was chasing his daughter from Tata itself and he kidnapped his daughter at Samastipur (Bihar) Railway Station with intent to marry her while she was going to the washroom in the train. It was informed by Jitendra Prasad to him by mobile phone. Thereupon, he directed Jitendra Prasad to give information to Samastipur, GRP Police Station. The same day, informant along with his friend hurriedly set for Samastipur and met Samastipur Officer In-charge, Samastipur Police Station and gave him information about the occurrence and requested to lodge FIR. However, the Officer In-charge of Samastipur GRP Police Station asked him to go Kapali O.P to lodge FIR, because the matter comes under its jurisdiction. Thereupon, on 16.12.2013, he went to Kapali O.P and met In-charge and requested to lodge FIR and recover his daughter. In the meantime, on 28.12.2013, Rajendra Singh along with his father Ramji Singh and mother Jitni Devi; sister Rajni; brother-in-law Om Prakash; brother Krishna Singh and Ganesh Singh came to Kapali O.P along with his daughter in a dramatic way. Rajendra Singh kept the informant’s daughter roaming for six days from town to another. The FIR was not lodged on 28.12.2013 and his son and daughter were kept in the Police Station under its supervision till 29.12.2013. He requested the Police to take speedy action and seeks justice to her daughter by taking action against the culprit.

4. After registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced and charge-sheet bearing No. 59 of 2014 dated 09.08.2014 was filed against the Appellant, Rajendra Singh, and other co-accused persons, viz. Rajni Devi and Om Prakash @ Jai Prakash under Sections 363, 366(A), 376, 323 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal C