JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) questioning the judgment dated 26.05.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/First F.T.C.S. (POCSO) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, in Special Sessions Case No. 82/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence 363 of Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 5 years (IPC) and fine of Rs. 200/-. In default, 6 months R.I. more. 366-A of IPC RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 200/-. In default, 6 months R.I. more. 376(3) of IPC RI for 20 years and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default, 2 years R.I. more. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that the appellant kidnapped the victim aged about 15 years and repeatedly raped her and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. 3. The first information report (for short, the FIR), (Exhibit P/2) was lodged by the Bihari Banjare (PW-2) father of the victim at Police Station, Torwa, District Bilaspur, on 07.05.2019 at 21:30 hours, which was registered as Crime No. 0155/2019 for the offences under Section 363 and 366 of the IPC. The said FIR was registered by Amrit Sahu, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-16). 4. In the FIR, it was alleged by the complainant-Bihari Banjare (PW-2) that his daughter (victim) who was aged about 15 years and had left her studies since last year, had gone somewhere on 04.05.2019 before 5 a.m. When he enquired about his daughter, it was revealed at Lalkhadan that the appellant/accused, who was working at Pradeep Hotel had lured his daughter and taken her alongwith him. From that date, the accused/appellant was also not coming for work at Pradeep Hotel. 5. The victim was recovered on 19.05.2019 at 13:30 hours by the Head Constable, Sunita Ajgalle (PW-14) from the custody of the appellant/accused from a hut like house near an under-constructed building situated at Dev Nagar, 67, Nagpur, Maharashtra, in presence of Leeladhar Hedau (PW-6) and one Shekhar Tukaram Satpute , and accordingly, a Baramadgi Panchnama (Exhibit P/10) was also prepared. 6. The accused/convict was arrested on 21.05.2019 at 11:30 a.m. by the police of Police Station, Torwa. 7. 6. The accused/convict was arrested on 21.05.2019 at 11:30 a.m. by the police of Police Station, Torwa. 7. After investigating the matter, the police submitted the police report alongwith charge-sheet against the appellant/convict under section 363, 366 and 376 of IPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bilaspur, on 18.07.2019. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge on 25.07.2019 charging the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accused/convict abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 9. Amongst others, the prosecution has exhibited the following documents in support of its case: Statement of victim (Exhibit P/1) First Information Report (Exhibit P/2) Crime details form (Exhibit P/3) Property seizure memo (Exhibit P/4) Consent letter (Exhibit P/5) Memo regarding providing of Dakhil Kharij Register (Exhibit P/6) Property seizure memo (Exhibit P/7) Copy of admission and discharge register (Exhibit P/8C) Baramadgi Panchnama (Exhibit P/10) Memo to T.I. regarding recording statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P/11) Statement of Pradeep Paswan (Exhibit P/12) Memo regarding providing of CDR of mobile No. 6263207973 and 6067702878(Exhibit P/13) Call details (Exhibit P/14) Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P/15) Application for medical examination of victim and medical examination report (Exhibit P/16A and P/16) Property seizure memo (Exhibit P/17) Consent letter (Exhibit P/18 and P/19) Notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P/20) Application for medical examination of accused and medical examination report (Exhibit P/21) Property seizure memo (Exhibit P/22) Memo to Judicial Magistrate regarding recording statement of victim (Exhibit P/23) Memo regarding providing of Spot map (Exhibit P/24) Memo for FSL report (Exhibit P/25) Memo of Exhibits (Exhibit P/26) Memo to Tahsildar dated 09.07.2019 (Exhibit P/27) FSL Report (Exhibit P/C/01) Article A (Progress report) FSL Report (Exhibit P/C/01) 10. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses namely: Victim (PW-1): She states that she knows the accused. She stated her age to be 14 years. The incident took place on 04.05.2019. The accused came to her house at 5 a.m. in forcibly took her. At that time, she was alone at home. He took him to Bilaspur Railway Station and from there, he took her to Nagpur by train where he kept her in a hut like house forcefully and made physical relationship. The incident took place on 04.05.2019. The accused came to her house at 5 a.m. in forcibly took her. At that time, she was alone at home. He took him to Bilaspur Railway Station and from there, he took her to Nagpur by train where he kept her in a hut like house forcefully and made physical relationship. When police persons came, they rescued and took her with them. Alongwith the police personnel, his father was also there. The lady police personnel took her in another room where her statement was taken. Before her medical examination, consent was obtained from her father and even her statement was recorded before the Magistrate. In the cross examination, she states that she was class 5th pass and it had been three years since she had left her studies. It was incorrect to state that she was 8th passed and since she failed in 8th class, she had left her studies. She has admitted that she loved the accused/convict and she used to meet the accused/convict. Further, at one place, she has admitted that she had threatened the accused/convict that she would commit suicide for which he would be responsible. She has stated that she alongwith the accused had went from Gas Godown to the Railway Station on foot. They boarded the train without purchasing the tickets. Though in her statement she has expressed ignorance with regard to her date or year of birth but she specifically denied that she was a major aged about 20 years. Bihari Banjare (PW-2): He is the complainant and father of the victim who had lodged the FIR. He states that on the date of incident when he woke up at 5 a.m., he saw that his daughter was not at home. He tried to search in the nearby areas, he could not trace her. On the said date, at about 9 a.m., the owner of Pradeep Hotel called him over phone and asked about his daughter and he said that his employee i.e. the accused had also gone missing. When the complainant called the accused on his phone, the accused informed him that he was in Nagpur. On the said day, the complainant and the nephew of Pradeep went to Nagpur in search of the accused. Next day, they tried to search the accused and the victim but they failed and they returned back to Bilaspur. When the complainant called the accused on his phone, the accused informed him that he was in Nagpur. On the said day, the complainant and the nephew of Pradeep went to Nagpur in search of the accused. Next day, they tried to search the accused and the victim but they failed and they returned back to Bilaspur. He again went to Nagpur alongwith the police personnel and the victim was recovered from a hut like house but he does not know as to which was that place. The victim said nothing to the complainant but she informed the police personnel that she was lured by the accused on the pretext of marriage. In the cross-examination, he stated that he knows the accused as the accused used to work in Pradeep Hotel where the complainant used to buy eatables. He stated that he was an illiterate and cannot state regarding the dates and days. He has further denied that the accused used to visit his house or that the victim liked the accused. He had also stated that when the accused was at Nagpur and he had talked with him, this fact was not disclosed by him to the police. He further stated that he being an illiterate, cannot state as to what was the mobile number of the accused. Smt. Ganga (PW-3): She is the mother of the victim. She states that she was seeing the accused for the second time and before this, she had seen him in the Court only. She had six children out of which two are boys and four are girls. She is not aware of the age of any of his children. She also states that she was an illiterate. The victim had informed her that the accused had done some wrong act with her and when she asked the victim as to what was the meaning of wrong act, she stated that the accused had made physical relationship with her. In the cross-examination, she stated that during her time, the marriage used to take place in between 15-16 years but she cannot state as to when she was married. She further stated that it had been 16 years since her marriage. She further stated that it was correct to say that she had informed about the age of the victim according to her belief. She further stated that it had been 16 years since her marriage. She further stated that it was correct to say that she had informed about the age of the victim according to her belief. She had informed the police that the victim is her third child. It was incorrect to state that the victim had told her that she wanted to marry the accused. She herself states that she would not permit her daughter to marry a person of other caste and it was further incorrect to say that because of this reason, the victim eloped with the accused. A query was made as to when she is not aware of the date of birth of the victim, how can she claim that she was a minor, this witness states that she was her mother and because of which, she was stating her age to be minor as per her belief. Saroj Mishra (PW-4): He is the Principal of Gayatri Vidya Mandir, Lalkhadan. He states that the police had requested (Exhibit P/6) for the Admission/Discharge register. This witness had produced the Admission/Discharge register where at page No. 19 at serial No. 666, the name of the victim, her father, mother, caste and date of birth was mentioned as 20.08.2004. It was seized as per seizure memo (Exhibit P/7). He further stated that at the time when the victim was admitted in their school, there was no process of filing any form. Whatever date the parents used to tell, the same was recorded in the register. Om Prakash Banjare (PW-5): He is the elder brother of the victim. He states that the mobile of the accused was seized by the police in his presence. In cross-examination, he stated that he could not tell as to which company the mobile belong to, however, the same was a touch screen mobile. Liladhar Hedau (PW-6): This witness states that he knew the accused as well as the victim. He had seen the accused and victim at Devnagar Pipdafata, Nagpur. Construction of a house was going on at Devnagar where he used to visit once or twice in a month. When he had gone there in the month of May, 2019, he saw that Police from Chhattisgarh had came there and recovered the victim from the possession of the accused. He had signed the Baramadgi Panchnama (Exhibit P/10). Construction of a house was going on at Devnagar where he used to visit once or twice in a month. When he had gone there in the month of May, 2019, he saw that Police from Chhattisgarh had came there and recovered the victim from the possession of the accused. He had signed the Baramadgi Panchnama (Exhibit P/10). In cross examination, he states that it was correct to state that the victim and the accused had gone there for doing the labour work. He further states that he cannot say as to whether the accused and the victim were brought by some one or they had ran away from their homes. Smt. Anju Chelak (PW-7): She was posted as Station House Officer at City Kotwali, Bilaspur from March 2018 to September, 2019. She further states that the SHO, Police Station, Torwa had sent a memo (Exhibit P/11) to her for recording the statement of the victim under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C through any lady police officer. She admits that there was no mention with regard to the date on which the said memo was sent to her. Pradeep Paswan (PW-8): He states that he is acquainted with the accused. The accused used to clean the dishes in his hotel. He came to know about the victim after the incident. The father of the victim had come to his Hotel and inquired about the victim. He further states that two months before the date of incident, the accused has left his job. Later, he came to know from his friends that he was doing labour work at Nagpur. When his statement (Exhibit P/12) recorded by the police was read over to him, he states that he never made any statement to the police. Sharda Suryavanshi (PW-9): She was a teacher at Gayatri Vidya Mandir, Lal Khadan, Bilaspur since 28.07.2015. She knew Smt. Saroj Mishra who was the Principal of their school. She is the witness to the seizure memo (Exhibit P/7). Hemant Aditya (PW-10): He is the Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Station Sarkanda and from January 2013 to October 2020, he was posted at Cyber Cell, Bilaspur. He had sent the call details and location of mobile numbers 6263207973 and 7067702878. He had received a request on his official email ID with regard to the call details from Police Station Torwa. He had sent the call details and location of mobile numbers 6263207973 and 7067702878. He had received a request on his official email ID with regard to the call details from Police Station Torwa. According to the information given by the mobile companies, the said number belongs to Monu Vishwakarma son of Pardeshi Vishwakarma,Jhigatpur, Belgahna, Kota. He had also given a certificate (Exhibit P/15) under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Ishwari Kashyap (PW-11): She is the Lady Constable posted at Cyber Cell, Bilaspur. She stated that since 2016 to 2020, she was posted at Police Station, Torwa. She had taken the victim alongwith MLC form for medical examination to District Hospital, Bilaspur. After examination, the Doctor prepared two vaginal slides and the undergarment wore by the victim were given in a sealed packet which was handed over to the Investigating Officer. Dr. Neelima Sharma (PW-12): She is the Doctor who had examined the victim when she was brought by PW-11. Before examination of the victim, she had obtained a consent letter (Exhibit P/16) from the mother of the victim. At the time of examination, the victim was in a sound state of mind and was cooperating fully. On external examination, it was found that she started menstruating since last year itself, her axillary and pubic hairs, breast were developed. There were no signs of injuries on her body. Labia majora and labia minora both were developed. Hymen was torn and two fingers could be inserted easily. There was no discharge. She had prepared two vaginal slides and her green coloured undergarment which the victim was wearing which had white stains on it, were sealed and handed over to the Constable for chemical examination. She had opined that no definite opinion could be given with regard to commission of rape and for ascertaining her age, she had advised for radiological examination. She further stated that she had written the age of the victim in the examination report as was stated by the victim herself. Manisha Gupta (PW-13): She is also one of the teacher working at Gayatri Vidya Mandir, Lalkhadan, Bilaspur. She had worked there for two years. At that time, Smt. Saroj Mishra was the Principal and Police had seized one register from her and in this regard, police had obtained signatures from her. Exhibit P/7 bears her signature. Manisha Gupta (PW-13): She is also one of the teacher working at Gayatri Vidya Mandir, Lalkhadan, Bilaspur. She had worked there for two years. At that time, Smt. Saroj Mishra was the Principal and Police had seized one register from her and in this regard, police had obtained signatures from her. Exhibit P/7 bears her signature. Sunita Ajgalle (PW-14): Se is the Investigating Officer and Head Constable who was posted at Police Station, Torwa from January 2016 to February, 2020. Case diary in respect of Crime No. 155/2019 was handed over to her for investigation. On 08.05.2019, she had gone to the place of incident and prepared Spot Map (Exhibit P/3) as stated by the complainant and in presence of the witnesses. On the said date itself, she had sent a memo (Exhibit P/13) to the Incharge Officer, Cyber Cell, Bilaspur for call details and location in respect of mobile numbers 6263207973 and 7067702878. On 19.05.2019, the victim was rescued from the possession of the accused from a hut near an under construction building at Nagpur in presence of the witnesses and had prepared Baramadgi Panchnama (Exhibit P/10). On 20.05.2019, she had obtained a consent letter (Exhibit P/18 and P/19) from the father and mother of the victim for examination of the victim. An application for examination of the victim was prepared (Exhibit P/16A) sent the victim was sent alongwith Constable Ishwari Kashyap to District Hospital, Bilaspur. On the said date, Ishwari Kashyap presented before him a sealed packet containing vaginal slides and undergarment wore by the victim. She had also wrote to the SHO, City Kotwali, Bilaspur for getting the statement of the victim recorded by any lady officer on 20.05.2019. She had also sent a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the father of the victim for producing the caste certificate of the victim. She had also sent an application (Exhibit P/21) for examination of the accused. Constable Deep Khandekar took the application form alongwith the accused to District Hospital and on the said date, the underwear of the accused was produced in a sealed packet which was seized vide Exhibit P/22. On 22.05.2019, she had sent an application to the Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur for recording the statement of the victim and on 24.05.2019, she had written to the Tahsildar for preparation of a Patwari Naksha. On 22.05.2019, she had sent an application to the Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur for recording the statement of the victim and on 24.05.2019, she had written to the Tahsildar for preparation of a Patwari Naksha. On 27.06.2019, she had sent a memo to the Principal of the School for producing the Admission/Discharge register which was duly produced. She had also sent a memo to the Superintendent of Police on 19.06.2019 for examination of the seized articles at Regional FSL, Tifra, Bilaspur. She states that during the investigation, the statement of mother and father of the victim, Monu Vishwakarma, Liladhar Hedau, Shekhar Tukaram Satpute were recorded as stated by them. In the cross-examination, she states that it was incorrect to say that the victim was not recovered from Nagpur. It was further incorrect to say that the victim was recovered from her own house at Bilaspur. The victim was rescued from the house of the witness Lilidhar son of Shankar. She admits that Patwari Naksha was not annexed with the case. She admits that when she had prepared a memo for recording the statement of the victim from a lady officer, as there was no lady officer at Mahila Thana, she scored it out and sent it to the City Kotwali, Bilaspur. She also admits that when the victim was recovered, no medical examination was conducted at Nagpur, however, she denies that the medical examination was conducted after 24 hours of recovery. Asim Kumar Bhardwaj (PW-15): He is the constable who was posted at Police Station Torwa from the year 2016 to 2020. He states that after examination on 20.05.2019, the lady Constable Ishwari Kashyap brought two sealed packets and produced before the I.O. Sunita Ajgalle which was seized vide Exhibit P/17 which bears his signature. In cross examination, he states that he was not aware as to what was inside the sealed packets. Amrit Sahu (PW-16): He states that from the year 2016 to 2019, he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at Torwa Police Station. On 07.05.2019, when the father of the victim came and made an oral report alleging that the accused/convict had lured his daughter and eloped, he had registered the crime in question (Exhibit P/2). In cross-examination, he states that it was correct to say that he had not registered the offence under the POCSO Act as the FIR was registered on the basis of oral complaint. In cross-examination, he states that it was correct to say that he had not registered the offence under the POCSO Act as the FIR was registered on the basis of oral complaint. 11. The statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded on 01.05.2021. To the most of the questions, either he expressed his ignorance or stated that it was false. He stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. On being asked, he stated that he want to lead evidence in his defence. In support of his case, the appellant/convict examined Dr. S.K.Tiwari (DW-1). 12. Dr. S.K.Tiwari (DW-1) stated that according to his opinion, the age of the victim appeared to be in between 14 to 16 years regarding which he had given a report (Exhibit D-1). 13. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant/accused under Section 376AB of the IPC but under the provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, 2012, has convicted him for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 14. The present appeal was filed on 14.12.2022 and the matter was listed for the first time on 05.01.2023. Thereafter, on 11.01.2023, the delay of 228 days in filing the appeal was condoned and the matter was ordered to be listed for admission of the appeal. On 23.02.203, the case was admitted for hearing, records were summoned and paper book was directed to be prepared. The matter further came up for hearing on the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant on 17.07.2023 on which date, notices were sent to the father of the victim enabling him to file his objection, if any. Thereafter, the application for bail of the appellant was heard on 04.08.2023 which came to be rejected directing the case to be listed after six weeks for final hearing. Accordingly, on 25.09.2023 the case was heard finally. 15. Mr. Rajeev Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant/convict submits that the allegations levelled against the appellant are false and baseless. He has neither committed nor participated in any such act which may amount to any of the offences mentioned above. Accordingly, on 25.09.2023 the case was heard finally. 15. Mr. Rajeev Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant/convict submits that the allegations levelled against the appellant are false and baseless. He has neither committed nor participated in any such act which may amount to any of the offences mentioned above. In fact, there was a love affair between the appellant and the victim it is a case of consent and elopement and not kidnapping. The victim herself agreed to accompany the accused and had it been a case of kidnapping, the victim could have raised alarm for her rescue as she travelled all the way from Bilaspur to Nagpur and stayed there for quite long time. Even the contention of the prosecution that the victim is a minor has not been proved substantially. It is a case of consent and not forceful rape. Even in the medical report, the Doctor has opined that no definite opinion can be given with regard to commission of rape. Even there is no internal or external injuries on the body of the victim. Hence, the judgment passed by the learned Court below requires interference and this appeal may be allowed acquitting the appellant of all the charges. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Avinash Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent would submit that for determination of the age of the victim, the school admission register was exhibited, her class 5th mark-sheet was also exhibited as Article A before the Court below wherein her date of birth has been mentioned as 20.08.2004. Even the statement of the father and mother of the victim suggests that the victim was minor on the date of incident. Further, the victim in her statement has clearly deposed that she was abducted from the lawful guardianship of her parents on the pretext of marriage and was detained and subjected to rape by the accused. The statement of the victim inspires confidence and remains uncontroverted. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 18. The father (PW-2) of the victim is the informant in this case who has lodged the FIR. In the FIR, the accused has been clearly named and the complainant has stated that the accused has lured his daughter and took her away with him. 18. The father (PW-2) of the victim is the informant in this case who has lodged the FIR. In the FIR, the accused has been clearly named and the complainant has stated that the accused has lured his daughter and took her away with him. The complainant was informed by one Pradeep that his worker i.e. the accused has also gone missing for the last few days as he was not coming for work. The complainant being an illiterate though has not been able to give the exact date of birth of the victim. The mother (PW-3) of the victim is also an illiterate lady. She has stated that the victim had informed her that the accused had committed rape upon her when she was at Nagpur. 19. The victim (PW-1) has clearly deposed that she was aged about 14 years and on the date of incident i.e. 04.05.2019, the accused came to her house at 5 a.m. when she was alone at her house. She further states that the accused forcefully took her to Bilaspur Railway Station and from there, they went to Nagpur. She has further deposed that she was kept in a hut like house where she was subjected to forceful rape. There is no reason as to why the victim would falsely implicate the accused. She has specifically denied that she had any love affair with the accused. 20. In the medical examination of the accused/appellant, the Doctor has opined vide Exhibit P/21 that there is no evidence to prove that he is unable to perform sexual intercourse. 21. The FSL report (Exhibit P/C/01) clearly states that from the vaginal slide of the victim, though no human sperm was found, but from the undergarment of the victim, human sperms were found. The report (Exhibit P/16) of the Doctor (PW-12) states that the victim started menstruating just one year before and her hymen was torn and two fingers could be inserted. No definite opinion has been given by the Doctor with regard to commission of rape and she had advised for radiological examination for determination of the age of the victim. 22. Dr. S.K.Tiwari (DW-1) in his reported vide Exhibit D/1 that the age of the victim was around 14 to 16 years. No definite opinion has been given by the Doctor with regard to commission of rape and she had advised for radiological examination for determination of the age of the victim. 22. Dr. S.K.Tiwari (DW-1) in his reported vide Exhibit D/1 that the age of the victim was around 14 to 16 years. In his deposition, he has clearly deposed that the lower part of radio ulna was not joint and the period of joining of radio ulna is 16 to 18 years, which goes to suggest that the victim was below the age of 16 years. 23. The admission/discharge register seized from the Principal (PW-4) of the School (Exhibit P/8/C) clearly records the age of the victim as 20.08.2004 and her class 5th mark-sheet also mentions her date of birth as 20.08.2004. The appellant/accused has not been able to rebut the said contention of the prosecution in any manner. 24. Hence, from the said analysis, it can safely be held that the victim was a minor aged about 14 years and 8 months on the date of incident. 25. The I.O. Smt. Sunita Ajgalle (PW-14), in her statement before the Court has narrated the entire sequence of events which has remained unrebutted by the defence. 26. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the victim has fully supported the case of the prosecution. She has been consistent right from the very beginning. Nothing has been specifically pointed out why the sole testimony of the victim should not be believed. Even after thorough cross-examination, she has stood by what she has stated and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. We see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the victim. 27. Since the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 has been found proved against the accused/appellant, it would be proper to take note of the same which reads as under: “6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.-- (1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death. (2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.” 28. The appellant has also not stated anything concrete in his defence except that he does not know or that he has been falsely implicated. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is guilty of the offence is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the trial Court. 29. Section 42 of the POCSO Act, 2012 reads as under: "42. Alternate punishment.- Where an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under sections 166A, 354A, 354B, 354C, 3540, 370, 370A, 375, 376, 376A, 376C, 3760, 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree. 42A. Act not in derogation of any other law. - The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and, in case of any inconsistency, the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect on the provisions of any such law to the extent of the inconsistency." 30. The learned trial Court has rightly sentenced the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in light of Section 42 of the POCSO Act as the sentence provided under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is of a greater degree. 31. In the case of Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573 , the Supreme Court observed and held that that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the series of judgments on conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix. In paragraphs 10.1 to 10.3, it was observed and held as under: “10.1. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the series of judgments on conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix. In paragraphs 10.1 to 10.3, it was observed and held as under: “10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay [Vijay v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191 ], it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: (SCC pp. 195-98) “9. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550 this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para 16) ‘16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.’ 10. In State of U.P. v. Pappu, (2005) 3 SCC 594 ] this Court held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 597, para 12) ‘12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do.’ 11. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 , this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. the court is duty-bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394-96 & 403, paras 8 & 21) ‘ ‘8. … The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. … The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. … The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. … Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. … Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. … *** 21. … The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.’ 12. In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra, (2002) 9 SCC 86 , this Court held that rape is not mere physical assault, rather it often distracts (sic destroys) the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. In State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 622 , this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan v. State of M.P., (2010) 2 SCC 9 placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 . 14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.” 10.2. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 , it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 10.3. Who can be said to be a “sterling witness”, has been dealt with and considered by this Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 . In para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29) “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 32. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, { (2019) 11 SCC 575 }, it was observed and held that as a general rule, if credible, conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It was further observed and held that sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. In paragraph 29, it was observed and held as under: “29. It is now well- settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283 . It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the “probabilities factor” does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. State of Rajasthan v. N.K., (2000) 5 SCC 30 .” 33. In the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, { (2018) 18 SCC 34 }, the Supreme Court observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It was further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. In paragraphs 6 and 7, it was observed and held as under: “6. We are conscious that the courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. In paragraphs 6 and 7, it was observed and held as under: “6. We are conscious that the courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults. [See State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 (SCC p. 403, para 21).] 7. It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. (See Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635 ).” 34. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the victim. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the victim can be sustained. 35. So far as the statement of the victim that she loved the accused/appellant is concerned, the fact remains that she was a minor on the date of incident aged about 14 years and 8 months. As such, taking her away from the lawful guardianship of her parents by the appellant/accused has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. A plea has been taken that even if there was a sexual relationship between the victim and the accused/appellant, it was consensual and as such, no offence under Section 376(3) is made out. Further plea has been taken by the counsel for the appellant/accused that as there were no external or internal injuries found on the body of the victim and therefore it may be a case of consent. The aforesaid has no substance at all. No such question was asked, even remotely, to the victim in her cross-examination. Therefore, the aforesaid submission is to be rejected outrightly. The consent of minor girl in case of sexual intercourse is immaterial, it amounts to rape and this is the foundational ground for awarding conviction to accused/appellant under Section 376(3) of the IPC. 36. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict. 36. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict. 37. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 38. The appellant/convict is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 26.05.2021. 39. Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any.