JUDGMENT :

Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Adil against the judgement and order dated 11.12.2018 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/8th Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in POCSO case No. 38 of 2015 (State Vs. Adil) arising out of case crime No. 858 of 2014, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kharkhauda, District Meerut, and convicting the appellant under Sections 363 IPC, five years with rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-in case default of payment of fine he will have to undergo additional imprisonment for six months, convicting the appellant u/s 366 of IPC seven years with rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-in case default of payment of fine he will have to under go additional imprisonment for six months, convicting the appellant u/s 376 of IPC ten years with rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-in case default of payment of fine he will have to under go additional imprisonment for six months and convicting the appellant u/s 3/4 POCSO Act ten years with rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-in case default of payment of fine he will have to under go additional imprisonment for six months.

2. Brief facts of the case is that Mohd. Kausharinformant who is the father of the victim lodged the first information report against the appellant that on 12.12.2014 at about 1:30 PM, the daughter of the informant namely Aksa Parveen went at shop but she did not return till 4:00 PM then informant searched and during search, it has come to know that the appellant enticed away to his daughter. With these allegations, FIR was lodged as case crime No. 858 of 2014, under Section 363, 366 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act at P.S. Kharkhauda, District Meerut on the same day.

3. After lodging the FIR under Section 363, 366 IPC and 3, 4 POCSO Act, case was handed over to the Investigating Officer, S.I. Satendra Singh and during investigation, Investigating Officer recovered the victim on 1.12.2014 and the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she stated that the appellant eloped her by administering intoxicated cold drink and took her away to Jaipur where the appellant committed rape upon her in hotel and when the appellant returned back from Jaipur Hotel for Meerut then victim as well as appellant were recovered from Jubaida Masjid. After recording 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, in which she supported the allegations of the FIR.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses. PW-1 father of the victim who proved the written report as exhibit Ka 1; PW-2 is the victim, she narrated the entire version and proved statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit Ka 2; PW-3 Shabhnoor is the mother of the victim; PW-4 Ruksana; PW-5 Constable Jaypal Singh who proved the Chik FIR as Exhibit Ka 3 and G.D. as Exhibit Ka 4; PW-6 Sub Inspector Satendra Singh who proved the site plan as Exhibit Ka 4 and chargesheet as Exhibit Ka 5; PW-7 Dr. Kiran Singh (C.M.O.) who conducted the medical examination of the victim, in her statement, she stated that no external injuries found of the body of the victim, hymn old torned, vaginal smear slide prepared and sent to the pathological examination, proved the medical report as exhibit Ka-6 and Ka-7, PW-8 Dr. Pramila Gaud (radiologist), she stated before the Court that in microscopic examination of the smear, spermatozoa present in vaginal smear slide who proved the pathological report as Exhibit Ka-8. Thus, the prosecution relies on oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-8 and documentary evidence as exhibit Ka-1 to Ka-8.

5. After close of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he stated that the informant borrowed Rs. 80,000/- from the appellant for purchasing a plot which was not returned by the informant after repeated demand. When the appellant strongly demanded his money,