The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of consent, coercion, and age in determining the applicability of legal provisions related to kidnapping, sexual offences, and child marriage.

1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2018/31.08.2018 passed by Special Judge, POCSO, Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2015 whereby appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363, 376 IPC & under Section 4, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short “POCSO Act”) and was sentenced to undergo three year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo one month additional imprisonment under Section 363 IPC; sentenced to undergo seven year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo one month additional imprisonment under Section 376 IPC; and sentenced to undergo seven year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo one month additional imprisonment under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo ten year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo one month additional imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW1 informant-father of prosecutrix lodged an FIR with police station Kotwali Jwalapur, Haridwar on 11.02.2015 stating therein that her daughter prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, is missing since 10.02.2015 at 03.30 p.m.; she went for tuition but she did not come till evening; he inquired from his relatives but did not get any clue; yesterday, she did not go for tuition class; today, I come to lodge her missing complaint. He believed that one Vivek enticed her away; kindly, lodge the FIR and accordingly, FIR was registered.

3. After investigation, PW6 Sub Inspector Geeta Chaudhary submitted charge-sheet under Section 363, 366A, 376 IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act against the appellant.

4. When prosecutrix came to know that her father has lodged FIR, prosecutrix herself appeared before the police station on 12.02.2015. On 13.02.2015, she was produced before II Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar and her statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and on the same day, her medical examination was done.

5. After committal of the case to the court of Session, learned trial court was pleased to frame charges under Section 363, 366A, 376 IPC and under Section 3(a)/4 and 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act. Appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.

6. To prove the prosecution story, PW1 father of the prosecutrix, PW2 prosecutrix, PW3 Dr. Rajendra Rana, PW4 mother of prosecutrix, PW5 Sub Inspector Janki Bhandari PW6 Sub Inspector Geeta Chaudhary, PW7 Constable Manish Rawat and PW8 Rukam Singh were examined. Thereafter, statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, trial court was pleased to pass the impugned judgment and order. Feeling aggrieved, appellant has preferred the present appeal.

8. I have heard Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Deputy Advocate General for the State and have carefully perused the record.

9. Prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated as under:

“I knew Vivek since October. Vivek is residing in Ghasmandi. I went with Vivek out of my own sweet will in November. Three months before, I solemnized court marriage with Vivek in Roshnabad and after marriage, I came to my home and two days before, I along with Vivek came to his sister’s house in Raiwala. I want to go with Vivek. If he does not want to take me, I will stay with my parents. Vivek has neither compelled me for marriage nor for stay with him.”

10. While appearing in the witness box PW2 prosecutrix stated on oath that she married with appellant out of her own sweet will. Nobody compelled her for marriage. There was no quarrel between the parties. Appellant did not compel her for