JUDGMENT

Manisha Batra, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 26.02.2021 and order on quantum of sentence dated 02.03.2021 passed in Sessions Case No.127 of 2019 titled as State v. Sumit and another, whereby the accused, Gaurav had been acquitted of the charges as framed against him whereas the accused Sumit had been acquitted of charge under Section 506 of IPC but was held guilty and convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section 366 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short 'IPC') and section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO, Act ').

2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant-Sumit shall be referred to as 'the accused' hereinafter.

3. The broad contours of the case as set up by the prosecution in this case are that on 07.12.2018, the prosecutrix 'R' (name withheld) while disclosing herself to be 15 years old, recorded a statement before police that she was studying in 9th class. On 06.12.2018 at about 8:00 a.m., she was going to her school from her home, when she met the accused Sumit and Gaurav on the way. They were having a car. Gaurav told her to sit in the car by representing that they would drop her at the school. The prosecutrix had boarded the car but instead of dropping her at her school, they took her elsewhere and stopped the car near Toll Plaza Hodal. The prosecutrix requested Gaurav to drop her at school and by saying that he had some work to do and thereafter, he would drop her, they took her further and stopped the vehicle in a ground where they served her with cold drink 'Pepsi'. The accused then had secretive conversation with each other and thereafter accused Gaurav alighted from the car whereas accused Sumit boarded in backside of the car where the prosecutrix was sitting and then while threatening her and pushing her, he committed rape upon her by taking off her salwar. The prosecutrix started crying and pleaded with accused Sumit to leave him. However, he threatened to kill her if she disclosed about the incident to anyone else. Thereafter, both of them dropped her near the drain. She had managed to reach her house somehow and disclosed about the incident to her mother.

4. On the basis of this statement, a case under Sections 120-B, 363, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act was initially registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. Medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix was conducted. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). The offence under Section 17 of the POCSO Act was added against accused Gaurav. Accused were arrested. They were interrogated and suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the subject crime. After completion of necessary investigation and formalities, challan under Section 17 3 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court for trial of the accused.

5. Copies of the challan were supplied to the accused free of costs. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. On finding a prima facie case for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B, 366 read with Section 120-B and 506 (II) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, both the accused had been chargesheeted accordingly. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses, besides placing reliance upon certain documents. These witnesses were PW1-'R' prosecutrix, PW2-'S' mother of the prosecutrix, PW-3-'V' father of the prosecutrix, PW4-Ravinder Singh Dahiya Draftsman, District Court Compound, Palwal, who had prepared s