Back
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Ashish Naithani, J.
Sagar Ray – Appellant
versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.391 of 2021
Decided on 10.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel
For the State: Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder
IMPORTANT POINT
Aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon minor girl – Consent of a minor is immaterial in eyes of law.
Headnote:
Protection of Childrenom Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363 and 367 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon minor girl – In absence of any cogent rebuttal, school records can be relied upon for determining age – Defence has not led any evidence to controvert the documents nor has it been able to demonstrate any inherent inconsistency therein – In such circumstances, finding recorded by Trial Court that victim was a minor does not suffer from any illegality or perversity – Once minority of victim stands established, consent or voluntary companionship loses all significance – Consent of a minor is immaterial in eyes of law – Medical evidence is corroborative in nature and cannot override direct testimony of victim if same is otherwise reliable – Trial Court has undertaken proper appreciation of evidence and has recorded findings which are both reasonable and legally sustainable – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 21, 22, 28, 29 and 30)
Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Ashish Naithani, J.—The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Court / FTC / Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial no.621 of 2018, whereby the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant has been directed to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The Appellant has further been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 367 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years each along with fine, with default stipulations. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The case, in brief, is that the victim, who was a minor at the relevant point of time, was allegedly enticed and taken away by the Appellant from the lawful guardianship of her parents. It is alleged that during the period of such taking, the Appellant committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
4. Upon registration of the First Information Report, the matter was investigated. The victim was medically examined, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant.
5. The case being triable by the Special Court under the POCSO Act, charges were framed against the Appellant under the relevant provisions. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined witnesses including the victim, her guardians, and the investigating officials, and also relied upon documentary evidence including medical and age-related records.
6. The Appellant denied the allegations and claimed false implication. No cogent defence evidence was led, except suggestions in cross-examination and denial in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
7. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, found that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly recorded conviction and imposed sentence as noted above.
8. Learned counsel for the Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment primarily on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational requirement of minority of the victim in accordance with law. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has placed reliance upon school records to determine the age of the victim, however, the prosecution has not examined the author of such documents nor has it proved the source from which the date of birth was recorded.
9. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of proof of the basis of such entries, the documents relied upon cannot be treated as conclusive proof of age. It is further contended that no medical examination for determination of age was conducted, and therefore, the possibility of the victim being a major, or at least being of an age proximate to majority, has not been ruled out, thereby rendering the applicability of the provisions of the POCSO Act doubtful.
10. Learned counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that the testimony of the victim is not of such quality as would inspire confidence and form the sole basis of conviction. It is contended that there are material inconsistencies in her statements recorded at different stages of the proceedings. According to the learned counsel, the version as set out in the First Information Report does not fully align with the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and certain aspects of the allegation have been improved upon in her depos
