The conclusive DNA report, along with the victim's consistent testimony and age, played a pivotal role in establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the offenses of rape, abduction, and criminal intimidation against a minor girl.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This Appeal is preferred by the appellant from Jail assailing the judgment and order dated 20.01.2021, passed by learned FTC/ADJ/Special Judge/POCSO, Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No.437 of 2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.30,000/- and, in default of fine, he was sentenced to undergo six months’ additional simple imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and, indefault of fine, he was sentenced to undergo one month additional simple imprisonment. He has further been convicted under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default of fine, he was sentenced to undergo two months’ additional simple imprisonment. He has further been convicted under Section 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of fine, he was sentenced to undergo fifteen days’ additional simple imprisonment. It was directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 29.09.2019, an FIR was lodged by father of the victim with the allegations that his daughter aged about 13 years went to collect the wooden powder from the furniture shop in Chandipur owned by appellant. The appellant raped the daughter of informant inside the showroom and threatened her to life, if she discloses it to someone. Due to threat given by the accused, his daughter did not disclose it in the family. On 28.09.2019, his daughter disclosed that she was pregnant and it was consequence of being raped by the accused many times.

3. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation of the case and after doing necessary formalities and arresting the accused, submitted a charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-8) against the accused (appellant herein) in the court. The blood sample of the victim as well as that of accused-appellant was sent for chemical examination. The report given by the concerned FSL is on record as (Ext.Ka-10).

4. The trial court, finding sufficient grounds, framed charges against the accused-appellant on 08.01.2019 under Sections 366, 376(2)(h), 506 of IPC and Section 5(q)/6 of the POCSO Act.

5. As many as eight witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the appellant to the hilt. They are PW1 (victim), PW2 (mother of victim), PW3 (father of victim), PW4-Reena Johri, Principal of School for proving the victim’s age, PW5-Dr. Tanuja Sinha, PW6 & 8-SI Surbhi Badoi and PW7-Dr. Akhilesh (Radiologist).

6. Thereafter, the statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations levelled against him.

7. The trial court on conclusion of trial, found the case to be proved against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and it accordingly proceeded to convict and sentence the accused-appellant as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this judgment.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the either party and perused the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record.

9. To prove its case, the prosecution produced the victim as PW1 in the court. She deposed that her date of birth is 10.02.2007. She is Class-V passed out from a Government School in District Udham Singh Nagar. She deposed that in the month of March, 2019 while she was standing outside on her door appellant waved a signal by his hand and called her to his shop on the pretext of taking wooden powder. She went to the shop since in the past also her parents used to collect wooden powder from his shop. She has further stated that the accused appellant offered her a cup of tea. On his resistance, she consumed the tea and thereafter, lost her consciousness. When she regained her senses, she was lying nake