The central legal point established is the importance of evidence in establishing the age of the victim and the commission of offenses, as well as the need for clear evidence to apply specific legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Goverdhan Bardhar, J.

1. Challenge in the instant criminal appeal has been made by the appellant to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.12.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Protection of Child Rights Commission Act, 2005 [for short 'the learned trial Court'] in Sessions Case No. 149/2018 (CIS No. 147/2018), State of Rajasthan Vs. Vijay Kumar, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that on 14.1.2014 complainant Mohan Lal (PW-2) submitted a written report (Ex. P6) at Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi to the effect that on 12.1.2014 he submitted a report with regard to missing of his daughter 'X'. During search conducted by him and other family members, they came to know that one Vijay S/o. Om Prakash, resident of Masalpur, District Karauli had kidnapped her. His daughter was a minor, aged about 16-17 years. His missing daughter was wearing silver waistband (Kanakti), silver anklet, gold earrings and 'Mangalsutra' on her body.

3. On the basis of aforesaid written report (Ex. P6), FIR No. 30/2014 was registered for the offence under section 363 and 366 IPC. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2) (V) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bundi.

4. Learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for the aforesaid offences. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of ten witnesses and 17-A documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence the accused appellant did not produce any evidence. The appellant aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court dated 21.12.2018 has preferred this criminal appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the accused appellant has argued that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has failed to appreciate that in the present case though the age of the prosecutrix was shown about 16-17 years, but she was a married lady aged approx 20 years. Victim did not receive any injury on her person. As per the prosecution case, the entire case is based on kidnapping of a minor girl. Documents submitted regarding age were neither proved nor signed by the father of the girl. There are major contradictions in the statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Prosecutrix admitted in her cross-examination that she had studied upto class IInd. FSL report does not support the prosecution story.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.

7. Victim who was examined as PW 1 has deposed that she has studied upto 8th standard and she studied in Government Girls School, Hindauli. Vijay met her at Kunkr