JUDGMENT :

RAJESH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 12.03.2019 and order of sentence dated 16.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I -cum- Special Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in G.R. (POCSO) Case No.1739 of 2015, arising out of Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case No.182 of 2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 366/ 376 of the Indian Penal code (in short IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (in short POCSO, Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with default clause each for the offence under Sections 376/ 366 IPC but he has not been sentenced separately for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. The prosecution story, in short, is based on the written application of the informant, namely, Ashok Kumar Mahato, alleging therein that on 05.06.2015 at about 2:30 a.m his daughter, aged about 16 years, went away from his house. He tried to search her out but could not succeed. He has alleged that one Mithun Munda, who used to do work in Girdhari Hotel by inducing her minor daughter, aged about 16 years, enticed her away. When the informant went to the house of the accused and told the father of the accused that his son has kidnapped his minor daughter then the father of the accused was ready to assault to the informant. He threw away the informant from his house.

On the basis of above information of the informant, Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S Case No.182 of 2015 dated 09.06.2015 has been registered under Sections 363/ 366A IPC, against the accused-appellant and the police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge sheet under Sections 363/ 366A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act and the trial court has framed the charge on 03.12.2015 under Sections 366/ 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the present appellant. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced.

4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 09 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:-

5. P.W.-1, Ashok Kumar Mahato, is the informant and father of the victim. He has supported the prosecution story. In his chief-examination, he has admitted that after one month of the occurrence his daughter returned to her home. He has identified the written report (Ext.-1)

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not seen his daughter going outside.

6. P.W.-2, Basanti Devi, is the mother of the victim. She has deposed that when she awake, her daughter was not there and came to know that the accused has enticed her away. When the police pressurized, the accused after ten days returned with her daughter.

In cross-examination, she has admitted that the door was opened but no one has seen her daughter going outside. In para – 8, she has deposed that the statement of her daughter was voluntarily recorded and the medical examination was conducted in her presence.

7. P.W.-3, Rahul Kumar, is the nephew of the informant and he has supported the case.

In cross-examination, he has admitted that upon search of the victim the parents of the accused informed that they have no knowledge.

8. P.W.-4, Shivajit Pramanik, is a hearsay witness.

9. P.W.-5, Rohit Kumar, is also the nephew of the informant and he has supported the case and has identified the accused.

10. P.W.-6, Shobha Devi, has stated that she heard that the victim has fled away with the accused.

In cross-examination, she has admitted that she has not seen the accused taking away the victim.

11. P.W.-7, Jawahar Lal Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has recorded the statement of the i