JUDGMENT :

1. The matter was listed on an application for suspension of sentence; however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal itself was taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Saxena & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 703, and further reiterated in Birbal Kumar Nishad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (SLP (Crl.) No. 4540/2021, decided on 30.06.2021) emphasized the mandatory requirement of protecting the identity of victims of sexual offences, and having regard to the provisions of Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, this Court deems it appropriate to withhold the real name and identity of the victim and her close relatives. Accordingly, for the purpose of maintaining anonymity, the victim has been referred to as the “victim” and/or “Bh” and the accused- appellant being the father of the victim has also been referred to by a fictitious name i.e. “B” in the present judgment.

3. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the accused- appellant “B” son of Shri Chatra Ram, assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated 13.10.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Child Rights Protection Commission Act, 2005, No.3, Pali (hereinafter referred to as “the Learned Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.89/2023, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences as under :–

4. As per prosecution case, on 27.03.2023, PW-4 Dilip cousin brother of the “victim” (being the son of her uncle) appeared before the Police Station Desuri, Pali and submitted a written report (Ex.P-15) stating therein that on 27.03.2023, he was present at his shop and had gone to his house in the afternoon for lunch. Upon reaching at home, he found that his uncle’s daughter (“victim”), who had been residing at his house for the preceding one month, had left the house without informing anyone and had allegedly gone away with some unknown person. He further mentioned in the report that as per the Aadhaar Card of the victim, her date of birth is recorded as “21.08.2008”, and therefore on the date of submitting written report was approximately 14 years of age. He also stated that she had not taken any articles from the house except her clothes. On the basis of the said written report he requested for taking appropriate legal action.

5. On the basis of the above written report, a formal FIR No. 42/2023 was registered at Police Station Desuri, Pali against unknown person for the offence under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge- sheet against the present appellant-accused for the offences under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(F), 376(2)(J) and 376(2)(N) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 and 5(L)/6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The co-accused namely Mithun Khan was also charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) and 376(2)(J) IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

7. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the aforesaid offences against the appellant-accused and co-accused Mithun Khan. Both the accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

8. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-42.

9. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all incriminating circumstances put to him and specifically pleaded innocence. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the “victim” used to talk with the co-accused Mithun, and that he has not committed any wrongful act. He further averred that he is suffering from a chronic disease. The accused-appellants produce documentary eviden