JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred at the instance of the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 17/07/2015 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar in Special Sessions Case No. 45/2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 363, 376(2)(i)/511 of IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 3 months and also convicted for offence punishable under Section 4/18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 2012) with the aid of Section 42 of the Act of 2012 and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. However, no direction has been issued as to whether both the sentences will run concurrently or consecutively.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27/07/2014 at about 1:30 PM at village Junwani Jora Road, the appellant herein abducted the minor victim, aged about 9 years, from her lawful guardianship and thereafter, committed sexual intercourse with her and thereby, committed the aforesaid offence.

3. Further case of the prosecution is that on 27/07/2014 at about 08:20 PM, victim's mother (PW-2) lodged a report at Police Chowki Bhatgaon that since it was a school holiday, she had not sent her daughter to school and had rather sent her to graze cattle and at about 03:30 PM, her daughter (victim) returned home and started crying and upon asking, informed her grandmother Manobai (PW-4) about the act done by the appellant. On the basis of the said report, zero first information report was registered against the appellant vide Ex.P/2 and at the instance of victim's mother (PW-2), victim's underwear and a ten rupees note given by the appellant to the victim were seized vide Ex.P/5. Thereafter, victim was subjected to medical examination which was conducted by Dr. Anita Verma (PW-10) and MLC report has been brought on record as Ex.P/10. Thereafter, zero first information report registered against the appellant was converted to actual numbered first information report vide Ex.P/9. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Act of 2012 which was committed to the Court of Special Judge for trial in accordance with law. The appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and brought on record 19 documents. The statement of the appellant was taken under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined only one witness in his defence and did not bring any document on record.

5. Learned Special Judge, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(i)/511 of IPC and Section 4/18 of the Act of 2012 and sentenced him as aforesaid.

6. Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that prosecution has failed to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and learned Special Judge has erred in convicting the appellant relying upon the testimony of the victim (PW-3) as she is not a trustworthy witness and even her medical report (Ex.P/10) does not support the prosecution case. As such, the appellant be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

7. Per contra, Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel, would submit that learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant relying upon the testimony of the victim (PW-3) as she has clearly stated about the act committed by the appellant and moreover, as per Dr. Anita Verma (PW-10) who medically examined the victim has clearly stated before the Court that injuries were found on the thigh of the victi