JUDGMENT :

Being highly aggrieved by the Judgment and Order, dated 11.06.2019, passed in POCSO Case No. 03/2017 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.308/2017 and Bokajan P.S. Case No.74/2017) by learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu whereby the present appellant, Sri Utpal Debnath, was convicted under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code as well as section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default Simple Imprisonment for 2(two) months under section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, this appeal has been preferred under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the above named appellant.

2. The facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal, in brief, are as follows:-

(i) That on 01.05.2017, the informant Sri Haren Rajbongshi lodged an FIR before Officer-in-Charge of the Bokajan Police Station, inter alia, alleging that his daughter (hereinafter referred to as victim girl) has been kidnapped, by the accused Utpal Debnath (present appellant), at about 8:00 A.M., on the same day and the whereabouts of his daughter was not known.

(ii) On receipt of the said FIR, the Bokajan P.S. Case No. 74/2017 was registered under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and one Sri Dhaniram Nath, S.I. of Police was entrusted to investigate the case. Ultimately, after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge-sheet against the present appellant Sri Utpal Debnath under section 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The accused (present appellant) faced the trial remaining on bail. Learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, after consideration of the materials available on record and after hearing learned counsel for both the sides, framed the charges under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the present appellant. The charges were read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution side adduced the evidence of as many as 11 Prosecution Witnesses. The accused (present appellant) was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C during which he denied the truthfulness of the testimony of Prosecution Witnesses and pleaded his innocence.

3. I have heard Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 (first informant).

4. Before considering the rival contentions of learned counsel for both sides, let me go through the evidences available on record.

5. P.W. 1, Sri Haren Rajbongshi, who is the father of the victim girl has deposed that on the date of incident his daughter went out to “Guwahatia Gaon” to bring one mobile charger and after sometime people informed him that one Udhab Debnath, who is the relative of the present appellant, forcibly took his daughter in an auto-rickshaw. Thereafter, he lodged an FIR in the Police Station which is exhibited as Ext.-1. P.W. 1 has further stated that, after coming to know about the incident, he also confronted Udhab Debnath about it, who denied the said fact before him. However, P.W. 1 has further stated that said Udhab Debnath confessed before Police that he took the daughter of the 1st informant in an auto-rickshaw and handed over her to the present appellant. P.W. 1 has further deposed that after eight months of this incident he received a phone call from his daughter, wherein she informed him that the present appellant had kept her in a place which is about 52 K.Ms away from Agartala in the State of Tripura. P.W. 1 has also stated that thereafter he informed this fact to Police and he along with the father of the present appellant went to Agartala and found them in the said village as stated by