The reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony and the application of the POCSO Act provisions in determining the appropriate sentence were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Record of the Court below has been received.

1. Heard on I.A. No.11968/2021, an application seeking permission to change the counsel.

2. Since this application is not opposed by earlier counsel appearing for the appellant, therefore, the same is allowed and Mr. Ashirbad Dwivedi is permitted to appear on behalf of the appellant.

3. Also heard on I.A. No.5582/2021, an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in jail for almost about seven years out of the total jail sentence of ten years awarded by the Trial Court, therefore, his prayer for bail may be considered on the ground of his period of detention as well as the fact that the hearing of this appeal may take time.

5. An option was given to learned counsel for the appellant that if he so desires, then he can argue the matter finally. Accordingly, Mr. Ashirbad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is ready & willing to argue the case today finally.

6. Thus, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard finally.

7. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Karera, District-Shivpuri (M.P.) in Special Sessions Trial No.59/2014 by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, for offence under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, for offence under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, for offence under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-with default stipulations. All the jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

8. According to the case of the prosecution, on 13.04.2014 at about 3:00 pm, complainant Santuram (PW.1) instructed the prosecutrix to fetch water from the well. It was replied by the prosecutrix that the complainant may proceed and she would follow her. When the complainant returned back after fetching water from the well then he saw that prosecutrix "X" was not at home. When he enquired from his another daughter "A" about the whereabouts the prosecutrix "X" then she informed that the prosecutrix "X" has been taken away by the appellant. When the complainant searched for the prosecutrix "X " in the locality, he was informed by Nilesh Jatav and Arvind that they had seen the prosecutrix "X" going with the appellant. Thereafter, the complainant went to the house of the appellant and found that the appellant was also missing. It was further alleged that the complainant he had seen the appellant talking to the prosecutrix "X" very often and, therefore, the appellant must have kidnapped her by enticing her. The F.I.R was lodged vide Exhibit-P/1 and the Crime No.131/2014 was registered by Police Station-Dinara, District-Shivpuri for offence under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. After recovery, the prosecutrix "X" reported that she was raped by the appellant and accordingly offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. The spot map was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecutrix was got medically examined and the ossification test was also conducted. The appellant was also sent for medical examination. The undergarments, vaginal slide and other articles of the prosecutrix were seize