JUDGMENT

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J. - Having been convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(i) IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment, having been convicted for offence under Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ('POCSO Act', for short), and sentenced with life imprisonment, and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under the POCSO Act, and to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months in default thereof, and having been convicted for offence under Section 366-A IPC and punished with a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and also to suffer simple imprisonment of one month in default thereof, by judgment dated 01.07.2015 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act-Cum-I Additional Sessions Judge at Warangal, the accused, Banoth Ravi, has approached this Court.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 18.10.2014 Ms. X (name withheld as she is the prosecutrix in the present case) (P.W.1) lodged a complaint with the Sub-Inspector, Maripeda Police Station wherein she claimed that she had studied from Class-I to Class-V at the Government School in Thanamcherla village. Subsequently, she left the school, and was staying at home. She was eking out her livelihood by doing manual work. A person, by name Banoth Ravi, aged 30 years, caste: Lambada, a farmer by profession, has been chasing her, telling her that he has fallen in love with her, and wanted to marry her. "I ignored his words. Three days ago, around 4:00 'O' Clock in the evening, Banoth Ravi, induced me and took me from my house to his maternal grandmother's house at Bachodu Thanda in Bachod village, in Thirumalayapalem Mandal of Khammam District, stating that he would marry me and forcibly participated in intercourse with me many times. On 18.10.2014 in the morning, I narrowly escaped from the clutches of Banothu Ravi and reached home and conveyed to my parents about the happenings. I am filing this grievance petition before your authority accompanying my parents to this police station."

3. On the basis of the said complaint, the police chalked out a formal FIR, namely FIR No. 221 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(i) of IPC, and under Section 5 (2) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act; the investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested by the police. He was put up for trial.

4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, and submitted fourteen documents. On the other hand, the appellant submitted neither oral or documentary evidence in defence. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal by the appellant before this Court.

5. Mr. P. Shashi Kiran, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions:-

Firstly, the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) herself is not a trustworthy witness. For, in the FIR (Ex. P. 9), and in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., she nowhere states that the appellant and his father kidnapped her from her house. In the FIR (Ex. P. 9), she nowhere mentioned that the appellant was accompanied by his father. But, she merely claims that three days ago, at 4:00 'O' clock, in the evening, the appellant induced her, and took her from her home. Yet, in her testimony, she claims that it is at night that the accused came along with his father, put a towel on her nose, due to which, she lost consciousness. From her house, the appellant took her to Bachod Thanda/Village and took her to the house of his maternal grandmother. Therefore, there are two different versions, with regard to the time when the appellant took her from her house. Hence, it is a glaring contradiction in her testimony.

Secondly, although the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) claims that she was forced by the appellant to have inter