(1.) This is an application for suspension of sentence and releasing the applicant/accused on bail during pendency of the appeal filed by him. He is convicted of offences punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act" for the sake of brevity) and under Sections 366 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court. For the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO, the applicant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Lesser punishments are imposed on other counts. Some fine and default sentence are also imposed on the applicant/convicted accused by the learned trial Court. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial Court.
(2.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/accused. By drawing my attention to Paragraph 52 of the impugned Judgment, the learned Counsel for the applicant/convicted accused argued that as held by the learned trial Court, the victim female child has voluntarily eloped with the applicant/convicted accused and she has not disclosed the incident to anybody though she had tonnes of opportunity to do so. By drawing my attention to the evidence of victim female child, the learned Counsel for the applicant/convicted accused argued that the incident came to be noticed by the police when the Ticket Collector of Railway had taken the applicant/convicted accused with him. By drawing my attention to the material elicited from cross-examination of the victim female child, it is argued that the victim female child was following her routine during her stay with the applicant/convicted accused and she had not parted with the company of the applicant/convicted accused though she had opportunity to do so. Therefore, in submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant/convicted accused as the applicant/convicted accused has undergone sentence of two years and seven months, he is entitled to be released on bail. It is further argued that age of the victim female child is not proved by the prosecution.
(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application.