ITTARSINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, the appellant is challenging his conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Special (P) Case No. 106 of 2016 on 04.2.2017. By the impugned judgment, the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 363 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POSCO Act" for short). For his conviction under Sec. 363 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is directed to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Insofar as his conviction under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act is concerned, his sentence is to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The prosecution case in nut shell is as under :

(3.) As per the first information report, the first informant is having two sons and one daughter (victim). In the first information report, her age is disclosed as 17 years and intimated that she was taking education in 11th standard. As per the first information report, during the period of harvesting, the first informant used to reside in agricultural field along with his wife and his two sons and daughter used to reside in the village. The first information report further recites that on 28.4.2016, in the evening when the first informant was present in the agricultural field along with his wife, one of his sons by name Niraj came and informed that the victim, who is his elder sister, is not available in the house. On getting this information, the first informant came to the village and made search of his daughter. However, she was not found and/or noticed. On 30.4.2016, one Ramkisan intimated him that his daughter had gone along with the appellant. In the first information report, it is stated that their love affair was going on as per Ramkisan. Thereafter, Ramkisan had been to the house of the appellant. At that time, it was intimated to him that within 4-5 days, they will be brought back. However, till the date of report, they were not brought and therefore the report was lodged.