Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.5.2015, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Durg, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.17/2014, convicting accused/appellant under Sections 363 & 366 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentencing him to undergo RI for 4 years & fine of Rs.1,000/-, RI for 4 years & fine of Rs.5,000/- and RI for 10 years & fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default clauses, respectively.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that Goukaran Sinha PW-3 lodged a missing report ExP-22A in police station Durg regarding missing of his daughter i.e. prosecutrix aged 14 years on 1.12.2013. During inquiry, the prosecutrix PW-1 was recovered from the custody of appellant on 4.12.2013 vide Ex.P-11. On the basis of statement given by the prosecutrix, it was found that the appellant had allured the prosecutrix with promise of marriage, then abducted and raped her. FIR Ex.P-18 was lodged registering offences against the appellant. During investigation, the prosecutrix and the appellant both were medically examined and statement of witnesses were recorded. Evidence regarding age of the prosecutrix were collected. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the concerned Court.

3. Charges under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act were framed against the appellant, he denied the same and sought for trial. Appellant was examined under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 6 witnesses in all. No witness was examined by appellant in his defence.

4. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been erroneously convicted for offences which he has not committed. The prosecutrix in this case had been a consenting party which is apparent from her conduct as also her statement. She left her house on asking of appellant and thereafter he took her to a village on foot but the prosecutrix never raised alarm during all that time and never made any attempt to escape from the clutches of appellant. The appellant had sufficiently disputed age of the prosecutrix, that she was not below 18 years of age on the date of incident. Prosecutrix PW-1 has stated that her date of birth is 13.11.1999 but she has not disclosed the source about her date of birth. Indrawati Sinha PW-2 is the mother of prosecutrix, who does not remember date of birth of prosecutrix and she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Similarly Goukaran Sinha PW-3, father of prosecutrix, has also been declared hostile by the prosecution, therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon. Dr. B.N. Dewangan PW-11, Radiologist, has opined that the age of prosecutrix was about 15 to 16 years and this should have been considered by adding margin of two years. The school register was not produced by the prosecution because of which adverse inference should have been drawn against the prosecution, which Court below failed to do. Further, according to evidence of prosecution, the sister of appellant is also a witness of this incident, who has not been made witness in this regard and therefore the Court below ought to have drawn adverse inference against the prosecution. The case of prosecution was full of doubts and therefore the appellant had been entitled for acquittal. In alternative, it is submitted that if this Court is not inclined to allow this appeal then, in the given facts and circumstances of case, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced as it is too harsh.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the grounds raised in this appeal as also arguments advanced by the counsel for appellant. It is submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyo