JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - The accused appellant Baljinder Singh @ Kulvinder Singh stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 04.09.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 59/2018 (CIS No. 85/2018):

2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

3. The facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:

The complainant Jagdish Meghwal lodged a written report (Ex.P/4) with Shri Ummed Singh, ASI of the Police Station Ghamudwali at the place of incident (the canal head) alleging inter alia that his daughter Mst. P (the deceased victim) was engaged for household chores at the house of Balram Mahiya. On the previous day i.e. 22.08.2014, his younger daughter Priyanka had also gone to Balram Mahiyas house with the victim deceased. In the morning, at about 07.30 am., Balram Mahiya approached the complainant and inquired about the whereabouts of the deceased on which, the informant told him that she had gone to his house. Since the victim was not traceable, a search was made in the nearby areas and with the relatives but, she could not be traced out. In the morning, Shri Jagdish came to know that Mohanlal Kumhar and Daljeet Singh had seen a girl coming towards the canal and jumping into it on which, he accompanied Balram and other villagers and, reached the P.S. Head of the canal and saw a deadbody floating therein. A red coloured Kurti was visible on the body. The police was informed. The deadbody, which was bare from down the waist, was taken out from the water. The complainant identified the same to be of his daughter Ms. P. The face and the private parts of the deceased were damaged. On the basis of this report, initially inquest proceedings No. 9/2014 were registered at the Police Station Ghamudwali. After postmortem had been carried out, an FIR No. 131/2014 was registered at the Police Station Ghamudwali against unknown accused with the allegation of killing the deceased Ms. P and throwing her deadbody into the canal. During the course of investigation, the finger of suspicion pointed towards the accused appellant who was arrested and after thorough investigation, the I.O. came to a conclusion that the accused and the deceased were indulged in some kind of affair with each other. The deceased was a minor girl. The accused took her away with him (kidnapped her); subjected her to forcible sexual assault; murdered her and threw her deadbody in the canal with the intention of destroying evidence of the offences. With these findings, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused in the competent court for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 364, 302, 376(2)(i), 376(a), 201 IPC; Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act respectively.

4. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellant for these offences. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 39 witnesses and exhibited 110 documents and 12 Articles in support of its case. The accused upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, denied the same and claimed to be innocent. However, no evidence was led in defence.

5. After appreciating the evidence available on record and the arguments advanced by the defence and the prosecution, the trial court formulated the following points for determina