JUDGMENT :

Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.12.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Surajpur, District Surajpur in Sessions Trial No.64/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 16.10.2018, a written report was lodged by the prosecutrix’s father before the Police Station-Bishrampur, alleging inter alia, that his minor daughter has gone somewhere else on 06.10.2018 at about 12 PM and has raised an apprehension that some unknown person has abducted while alluring her. Based upon the said information, an offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC has been registered by the concerned police against an unknown person and, during investigation, it was revealed that she was seen near the bus stand at Ambikapur with a boy. Based upon the said information, the prosecutrix was recovered from the appellant-Bijendra Malar and accordingly, the Baramadgi Panchnama (Ex.P-1) was prepared and her statement was recorded, who narrated the incident that on the fateful day, i.e. 06.10.2018, the appellant while alluring on the pretext of marriage, took her to brick kiln at Danapur (Patna) and has committed sexual intercourse with her for a period about one month. It was informed further by her that in an earlier occasion also, he has committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. After recording her statement, an offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”) has been registered against the appellant, who was then arrested on 11.11.2018. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 11.11.2018 and was sent for her medical examination and Dr. Seema Gupta (PW-9), who examined her, recommended for obtaining the report from the Radiologist in order to ascertain her age vide her report (Ex.P-12). For collecting the information pertaining to her age, “Dakhil Kharij Register” was recovered from the Headmaster of the concerned school and after collecting the vaginal slide and her underwear vis-a-vis the underwear of the appellant vide Ex.P-8 & P-9 respectively, sent the same for chemical examination and vide FSL Report (not exhibited), it was found to be proved positive and that by conducting the thorough investigation, a final report while registering the offence under Sections 363, 366 & 376(3) of IPC read with Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act has been filed against the appellant, who denied the charges so framed and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses, while none was examined by the appellant in rebuttal.

4. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the appellant has bee