JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 19.01.2022 passed by the leaned Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar in Special Case No. 50/2018, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer imprisonment for 3(three) months. The accused/appellant was also convicted under Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default stipulation.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant Naresh Basumatary who is the father of the victim had lodged an FIR before the O/C, Gossaigoan police station stating inter-alia that on 16.02.2018 when his minor daughter was returning home after appearing in the examination at Bhowraguri High School, she was kidnapped from Binnayakhata. Though the family members were in search of his daughter but she could not be traced out. Subsequently, they came to know that the accused/appellant had kept his daughter at Golakganj Bisondai village. It is also alleged that the accused had done injustice towards his daughter by doing such bad acts.

4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 58/2018 under Section 120B/363 IPC and the investigation had been started. During investigation, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses and seized one school certificate of the victim and the victim was sent for medical examination and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant under Section 363 IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act.

5. During trial, the accused/appellant had appeared before the court of Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar and the learned trial court on considering the materials available in the case, had framed charges against the accused/appellant under Section 366 IPC R/W Section 4 of POCSO Act which was read over and explained to the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the case of the prosecution 12(twelve) witnesses were examined and exhibited six documents. After completion of trial, statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and he neither examined any witness nor got marked any documents in his defence. After hearing argument advanced by the learned trial counsel for the parties, the learned trial court has convicted the accused/appellant as aforesaid.

7. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order, the accused/appellant had preferred this appeal before this Court.

8. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the accused/appellant has submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim during trial by producing any document. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the victim was around 18 years of age when the incident took place. She was consenting party to be eloped with the appellant. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant relying upon the school registrar is not tenable in the eye of law.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that there are lots of contradictions in the statement of the victim while deposed before the court as well as in her statement recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as such the evidence adduced by the alleged victim cannot be con