The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for independent proof of a minor victim's age in cases of sexual offences and the limitations of relying solely on school records for establishing age.

JUDGMENT

1. The challenge in this appeal is to a judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dtd. 27/5/2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad in Special Case (Child Pro.) No.10/2017. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 363, 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sec. 3 read with 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000.00, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000.00, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months respectively.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :-

P.W.3 'R' (victim) was residing along with her maternal grandparents at Pimparkheda. It was about 7.30 p.m. on 22/3/2017, she was proceeding to fetch milk. The appellant met her on way. He snatched her hand and took control of empty pot. He pulled her close to him, pressed her mouth, lifted her and took in a nearby onion field. The victim tried to shout. The appellant, however, gagged her mouth. He removed her pant and inner-wear as well. He too undressed himself and committed sexual intercourse with her against her wish and without her consent. He then left the place. The victim came home weeping. She informed her aunt (Swati) and grantparents as well. The victim was thereafter taken to the Waluj Police Station. She lodged F.I.R. (Exh.32). Based on the same, C.R. No.43/2007 was registered initially for offences punishable under Ss. 376(2)(i) and 363 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Scene of offence panchanama was drawn. Appellant came to be arrested. The victim was medically screened. Clothes on the person of both of them at the material time were taken charge of under the panchanama. School record of the victim was obtained. On completion of investigation, the appellant was proceeded against.

3. The trial Court framed charge (Exh.C/5). The appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence is of false implication. According to him, the victim was in love with 2 - 3 village boys. He had seen her with them. A false F.I.R. has, therefore, been lodged.

4. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and produced in evidence certain documents. The trial Court convicted the appellant and consequently sentenced him punishment as stated above.

5. Heard. The Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the aunt and the grandparents of the victim have not been examined. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution. C.A. Reports have not been placed on record. There is no concrete evidence in proof of age of the victim. The appellant was 21 years of age at the relevant time. He has been behind the bars for little over 5 years. He, therefore, urged for acquittal of the appellant.

6. The learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand, submit that, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to constitute offence of rape. Penetration howsoever slight, is sufficient to constitute the offence. The school record of the victim proves her to have been below 18 years of age at the material time. The learned A.P.P. supported the impugned judgment and order.

7. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the evidence relied on. Although 6 witnesses have been examined, the only evidence that would be relevant for deciding the present appeal is that of the victim, the Medical Officer who screened her and the Incharge Head Mistress of the school, wherein the victim had studied.

8. P.W.3 'R' victim testified that, it was 7.30 a.m. on 22/3/2017, she was proceeding to fetch milk. The appellant met her on way. He snatched her hand and took control of empty pot. He pulled her close to him, pressed her mouth, lifted her and took in a nearby onion field. The victim tried to shou