JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant against impugned judgment dated 19/01/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Special Sessions Trial No. 404/2014 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently:

2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 19/09/2014, the appellant herein abducted minor victim, aged about 13 years, from her legal guardianship and on the pretext of getting married, committed sexual intercourse with her and thereby, committed the aforesaid offence.

3. Further case of the prosecution is that victim's mother (PW-2) lodged a report at Police Station Sarkanda that in the morning of 19/09/2014, when she returned home after work, her daughter informed her that the appellant herein, who worked as a Sweeper in public toilet, lured her on the pretext of giving money and food and took her to a nearby room and committed sexual intercourse with her. On the basis of the said report, first information report was lodged against the appellant vide Ex. P/1. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/2. After obtaining permission from the Sub-divisional Magistrate vide Ex. P/5, victim (PW-1) was subjected to medical examination which was conducted by Dr. Rukhmani Tekam (PW-9) and she was referred to undergo Radiological test for age determination and as per the Radiologist's report (Ex. P/16), victim's age was opined to be between 11 to 13 years. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the Act of 2012 by order dated 05/01/2015 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 10 witnesses and brought on record 16 documents. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and neither brought any documents on record.

5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the Act of 2012 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 6 of the Act of 2012 by virtue of Section 42 of the Act of 2012 although the appellant was charged with Section 4 of the Act of 2012.

6. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the statements of victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2) and her maternal aunt (PW-8) are not reliable and the trial Court could not have based appellant's conviction on their self-serving statements as there is no other corroborating evidence available on record as the medical report (Ex. P/6) has also been found negative and the FSL report has also not been brought on record by the prosecution. In alternative, he would submit that charge was framed against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act of 2012 but he has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 6 of the Act of 2012 and it would not be permissible under Section 464 of Cr.P.C. as failure of justice has been occasioned in light of the decision rendered by