JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Chandel, J. - Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are decided together by this common judgment.

2. Criminal Appeal No.363 of 2019 has been preferred by accused Dinesh Nishad against judgment dated 14.2.2019 passed by the Special Judge (FTC), Bemetara in Special Case No.53 of 2016, whereby he has been convicted under Sections 363,366A,376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 (henceforth 'the POCSO Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/-,5 years with fine of Rs.500/-,10 years with fine of Rs.500/- and 10 years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations, respectively. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

3. Criminal Appeal No.558 of 2019 has been preferred by the victim/prosecutrix against the said judgment dated 14.2.2019 because the Trial Court has not granted her any compensation under Rule 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules,2012 (henceforth 'the POCSO Rules') read with Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on the relevant date, age of the prosecutrix (PW1) was about 17 years. On 20.9.2013, father of the prosecutrix, namely, Aziz Mohammad (PW2) lodged a report of missing of his daughter (the prosecutrix), which was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P19). He informed that the prosecutrix was missing since 25.7.2013. On 14.10.2013, the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of Appellant Dinesh Nishad. Her statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She was medically examined by Dr. Smt. R. Deodhar (PW9). Her report is Ex.P15 in which she opined that there was an old sexual intercourse done with the prosecutrix. For determination of age of the prosecutrix, she advised for ossification test, but no such test was conducted by the prosecution. Statements of other witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against accused/Appellant Dinesh Nishad and co-accused persons Hirakni and Rajendra Nishad. During trial, Hirakni absconded.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused persons denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness has been examined in defence.

6. After trial, the Trial Court acquitted co-accused Rajendra Nishad of all the charges framed against him, but convicted and sentenced accused/Appellant Dinesh Nishad as mentioned in the second paragraph of this judgment.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for Appellant Dinesh Nishad submitted that from the statement of the prosecutrix (PW1) it is well established that due to love relation with Appellant Dinesh Nishad, she herself left her house and travelled with him at various places, i.e., Raipur, Nagpur, Mumbai and Pune. They also resided together at those places as husband and wife. Thus, from her statement, it is well established that she was a consenting party. It was further submitted that at the time of occurrence, age of the prosecutrix was more than 18 years. At the time of her medical examination also, for determination of her age, the examining doctor had advised for ossification test of the prosecutrix, but no such test was conducted by the prosecution. In the birth certificate (Ex.P26) of the prosecutrix, her date of birth is mentioned as 6.11.1995 and as per the entries mentioned in Dakhil- Kharij register also, her date of birth is 6.11.1995. In kotwari register (Ex.P38) also, her date of birth is mentioned as 6.11.1995. But, Kotwar Khamman Das (PW16) has categorically admitted that Aziz Mohammad (PW2), father of the prosecutrix had come to him for registration of date of birth of the prosecutrix after 4-5 months of her birth. At that time, Aziz Mohammad had not been able