JUDGMENT :

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.:— Accused-appellants have preferred these appeals aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2013 passed by Special Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, 2012, Ajmer, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 3 66 IPC and under Section 3 /4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on non-payment of fine to further undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 3 66 IPC and life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 03.02.2013, PW-2 (Manju)-mother of the victim lodged a written report at Police Station Christianganj, Ajmer (Ex. P-1). It was stated in the complaint that on 03.02.2013 at around 01:30 pm, the accused appellant kidnapped the victim from Daharsen Park, where the victim had gone along with her three siblings. In the complaint, it was averred that accused-appellant lured the victim and took her on the hillock, where he committed rape with her.

3. On the basis of said report, police registered FIR No. 51/2013 under Sections 3 63 , 365 & 376 of IPC and under Section 3 /4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Police after due investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Sections 3 63 , 365, 376 IPC and Section 3 /4 of POCSO Act. The case was committed to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments on charge, framed the charges against the accused appellant for offences under Sections 3 66, 376(2) IPC and Section 3 /4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accused denied the charges and sought trial. As many as 11 witnesses were examined and 40 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. The explanation of the accused was recorded under Section 3 13 Cr. P.C., wherein he has denied the allegations and stated that he has been implicated due to animosity with paternal uncle of the victim-Rakesh (PW-6). Trial Cpurt after hearing the arguments has convicted the accused-appellant for herein above mentioned offences. Aggrieved by which, accused-appellant has filed this appeal.

4. It is contended by counsel for the accused-appellant that the accused was having animosity with uncle of the victim and accused was badly beaten by the uncle and other relatives of the victim and his clothes were filled with blood stains. There is possibility that blood of present appellant was put on the clothes of the victim to forcefully implicate him in this case. It is also contended that the victim in her cross-examination has stated that her family members told her to take the name of accused-appellant.

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the appeal. It is contended that victim is a six year old child who was examined as PW-1 and who has stated that accused posing himself as a ghost, took her behind the hills and after tearing her clothes and disrobing himself, committed the offence with her, on which she started bleeding. She has also stated that on her way back, she found her aunt-Khatoon, who caught hold of hand of the accused. PW-1 has clearly stated that the appellant took her and committed offence with her. It is also contended that the DNA report also connects the accused with the crime. PW-7 (Khatoon) has identified the accused in the Court and has stated that she saw the accused coming down the hill on 03.02.2013 at 06:00-06:30 pm and she handed over the accused and the victim to the uncle of the victim. It is also contended that the fact that victim was raped is also evident from the statement of PW-8 (Dr. Priyanka), who has deposed that something was inserted in the vagina of the victim.

6. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the record and hav