Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. The prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) on 7.2.2014 at 2:00/3:00 PM, as per case of the prosecution was enticed away by the appellant Guman Nath from the lawful guardianship of her parents with an intention to perform sexual intercourse. Therefore, the appellant was charged for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant wrongfully confined the prosecutrix at Jodhpur and thus, committed the offence punishable under Section 346 IPC. It is further case of the prosecution that since the appellant performed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix who was less than 18 years of age, and a child as per the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, he committed the offence punishable under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant also committed offence punishable under Section 29 of POCSO Act.

3. The appellant was tried by the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) Ajmer. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 17.1.2017 convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 346 IPC and Sections 3/4 and Section 29