IMPORTANT POINT
Public documents, such as school admission registers, can be admitted as evidence without the original author’s testimony, provided they are maintained in the regular course of business.

JUDGMENT :

The accused has stood convicted for the offences punishable under sections 376 (2) (i)(n) and 506 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short), and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’ for short) and sentenced to life under section 6 of the POCSO Act, and simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under section 506 IPC. The argument of Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel, gives rise to following questions to be answered :

i. Does Ex.P.8, the extract of School Admission Register fall short of evidentiary value for not examining the author of admission register?

ii. Is Ex.P.8 hit by section 162 of Cr.P.C.?

iii. Is conviction of the accused vitiated for not drawing his attention to the age of PW1 when he was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.?

2. Before answering the above questions, briefly the incident that led to prosecuting the accused may be stated here. PW1 developed acquaintance with the accused when she was a student of 5th standard as the latter used to visit the house of her neighbour viz., Yashodha. 16.06.2016 was her birthday (annual). Around 6.00 p.m. on that day accused went to the house of PW1 and took her to his house stating that there was a pooja in his house. There was nobody in the house of the accused when PW1 went there. The accused took her inside a room of his house and subjected her to intercourse. As she screamed, accused gagged a piece of cloth into her mouth. He repeatedly subjected PW1 to intercourse throughout night. On the next day morning when she was about to leave his house for her house, she was threatened to be killed if she would disclose the incident to anybody. Thereafter the accused had intercourse with her five or six times and threatened of killing her family members if she would disclose the same to anyone. When she started fainting in the school, the teacher informed of it to her mother. The medical checkup revealed that PW1 had become pregnant and at that time she disclosed everything. In this regard FIR was registered on 20.12.2016. PW1 gave birth to a female baby. The DNA test conducted during investigation confirmed that the accused was the father of the baby born to PW1.

3. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on 19 documents, Ex.P.1 to P.19 to prove its case. The trial court has of course referred to the evidence of all the witnesses, but in regard to age of PW1, there is no discussion at all. It appears that the defence did not make it a point of argument before the trial court in the way it was made a prominent point of argument before us. Since the age is a deciding factor to invoke any of the offences under the POCSO Act, point no.1 requires to be answered.

4. It is the argument of Sri. Hashmath Pasha that in spite of the fact that the prosecution produced Ex.P.8, admission register extract, and examined PW5 to prove it, it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to prove the age of the girl as 14 years on the first day of incident i.e., 16.06.2016. Ex.P.8 was marked through PW5 and thus a document was brought on record. It only amounted to producing a document in the course of trial and it did not amount to proving a document. He argued that mere marking of a document would not amount to proving it. Ex.P.8 is an extract of admission register maintained at the school. PW5 was not the author of the original admission register. In this view the author of the admission register should have been examined by the prosecution to prove the age of PW1. Elaborating on this point he argued that Ex.P8 is just an extract of admission register; it cannot be considered as a certified copy of a public document; PW5 may be author of Ex.P8, but since he is not the author of the admission register at the time when PW1 was admitted to school, his evidence is of no importance. He referred to some judgments of Supreme Court which will be referred to later.

5. Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, learned SPP-II for respo