JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is directed against judgment dated 24.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua (‘the trial Court’ for short) whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 363/376/343 RPC, where-after, in proof of offence under Section 363 RPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergone simple imprisonment for a period of 07 years and to a pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in proof of offence under Section 376 RPC, he has sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and, in proof of offence under Section 343 RPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. Before proceeding to discuss the grounds of challenge, it would be apt to briefly state the facts that gave rise to initiation of prosecution against the appellant before the trial Court.

3. On 27.02.2018, the father of the prosecutrix PW Simru Ram lodged a report with Police Station, Bani alleging therein that on 20.02.2018, he asked her daughter (prosecutrix) to come to his residential house for assisting him in construction work, but she did not turn up until 11 am. He searched for her at his home, but could not find her there. He waited for the prosecutrix till evening, but could not find any clue about her. According to PW Simru Ram, the age of her daughter was 15 years and he suspected that she has been kidnapped by some person. On the basis of this report, the police registered FIR No. 16/2018 for offence under Section 363 RPC and started investigation of the case.

4. During investigation of the case, the prosecutrix was recovered and she was subjected to medical examination. Her statement under Section 164-A CrPC was recorded before the Magistrate and a report relating to her age was also obtained from the Radiologist. As per the said report, the age of the prosecutrix was found to be 15/16 years. It was found, after investigation of the case, that the prosecutrix was in contact with the appellant/accused on phone for about one month and in February, 2018, the appellant called her to Bani. He made her to sit in a Bus and brought her to Kathua from where she was taken to Rajasthan in a Train where the appellant/accused had taken a room on rent. It was also found that the appellant had kept the prosecutrix over there for about 10-12 days and committed rape upon her 4-5 times. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was rescued by her brother who brought her back to Bani. Thus, offences under Sections 363/376 RPC were found established against the appellant/accused.

5. The learned trial Court vide order dated 01.02.2022 framed charges for offences under Sections 363/376/343 RPC against the appellant/accused. He denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the appellant, examined 07 out of 12 witnesses cited in the challan. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant/accused under Section 342 of J&K Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he denied the occurrence and claimed that the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsehood against him. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

6. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and upon appreciating the evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted of offences under Sections 376/363 and 343 RPC and he has been sentenced for committing the aforesaid offences.

7. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It has been contended that the prosecutrix has made contradictory statements before the Magistrate under Section 164-A Cr.P.C and before the Court during trial of the case and these contradictions relate to essential aspects of t