The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the victim's testimony and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the competence of child witnesses and the significance of motive and discrepancies in the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

Rajendra Kumar-IV, J

1. Present appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Sonu @ Pinku against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2012 passed by IInd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Session Trial No.629 of 2010 (State Vs. Sonu @ Pinku) under Section 363, 366-Ka and 376(2)(f) IPC and Session Trial No. 630 of 2010 (State vs. Sonu @ Pinku), under Section 25 Arms Act arising out of Case Crime No. 824 of 2010, P.S. Sector-58, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby Trial Court has convicted accused Sonu @ Pinku and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-under Section 363 IPC, 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-under Section 366-Ka I.P.C. and life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. with default punishment and 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-under Section 25 Arms Act.

2. Prosecution story in brief in F.I.R. is as follows :

On 10.06.2010, informant/complainant's children were playing outside the slums/Jhuggis built on the vacant plot before the petrol pump Wajidpur when the informant had gone to his work as usual. At about 11:30 a.m., one black Indica Car stopped near the children, which was being driven by accused-appellant Sonu @ Pinku, who seduced the victim aged about 8 years (name is not disclosed by the Court) and 3-4 other children were playing there and made them sit in the car and after covering some distance, he took off all the children except the victim from the car and took her (victim) towards Sector 62. Information, whereof, was given to police then the police vehicles came on spot in search of Indica Car and started its search. The accused-appellant raped the victim and threw her on the side of road in A-Block Sector 62, Noida, where she was found injured with bleeding, victim was taken to hospital in injured position for medical examination where she was medically examined.

3. A written Tehrir Ex.Ka-1 was presented by victim's father Ramesh @ Mehadi Hasan in the police station concerned whereupon F.I.R. (Ex.Ka-4) was drawn by constable Moharrir and entry was made in general diary.

4. P.W.-5 Dr. Archana Tyagi, medically examined the victim and prepared medical report (Ex.Ka-2). P.W.-8 Dr. Renu Awana, later on, examined her and prepared medical report Ex.Ka-11. The patient was admitted and undergone operation in hospital till 30.06.2010 under the supervision of Dr. Renu Awana.

5. P.W.-7 Rajesh Bharti undertook investigation in the matter, visited the spot, prepared site plan, recorded the statement of informant, victim and other witnesses and apprehended the accused on the information of informer on 15.06.2010 and recovered one country made tamancha of 12 bore with one cartridge from the possession of accused-appellant and on his pointing out one blood stained seat cover was recovered, prepared Fards thereof (Ex.Ka-8 and 9) and after completing entire formalities of investigation submitted charge sheet (Ex.Ka-10) against the accused-appellant under Section 363 and 376 I.P.C

6. P.W.-10 S.I. Mangeram Sharma undertook the investigation of Case Crime No. 824 of 2010, under Section 25 of Arms Act and after completing entire formalities of investigation, found sufficient evidence and submitted charge sheet (Ex.Ka-16) against the accused-appellant under Section 25 Arms Act.

7. Case, being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case of accused-appellant to the Court of Session wherefrom it was transferred to and came to be decided by IInd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar.

8. Learned Trial Court, after perusing the record, framed charges against accused-appellant Sonu @ Pinku under Sections 363 & 376 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act to which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses out of whom PW-1 Ramesh @ Mehadi Hasan, PW-2 Victim, PW-3 Rajjab and P.W