The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the victim's age beyond all reasonable doubt and the reliability of the victim's testimony in cases involving the application of the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) assailing the judgment of conviction dated 08.04.2019 and order of sentence dated 11.04.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua in POCSO Trial No. 25 of 2016 arising out of Bhabua P.S. Case No. 330 of 2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. We have heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The informant (P.W.-7) is the father of the victim (P.W.-3). Based on the written report of the informant (P.W.-7) dated 20.05.2016 in relation to an occurrence dated 15.05.2016, the First Information Report (F.I.R. for brevity) i.e. Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 330 of 2016 was registered disclosing commission of an offence punishable under Section 366A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C. for brevity) against this appellant and three others. The substance of allegation made in the F.I.R. was that on 15.05.2016, the informant's minor daughter, aged about 12 years, who had gone out of the house to ease herself, had not returned. He disclosed his firm belief in his written report that this appellant, his father Nathuni Ram and his brothers Aklu Ram and Akhilesh Ram must have kidnapped her for the purpose of marriage. It emerges from the materials on record that the victim was subsequently recovered with the appellant by the personnel of Samaipur Badli Police Station, Delhi on 03.07.2016. On receipt of the information regarding recovery of the victim, the police officials of Sonhan Police Station went to Samaipur Badli Police Station in Delhi and brought back the appellant and victim to Sonhan Police Station. Thereafter, she was medically examined on 06.07.2016 apparently to determine incident(s) of sexual assault. Also, she was referred to a Medical Board by the Doctor (P.W.-1) for determination of her age. The Doctor (P.W.-1) opined as under:-

“There is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. However, H/o past intercourse cannot be ruled out”

4. Further, based on physical examination, dental status and the radiological examination of the victim, the Medical Board determined the age of the victim to be between 17-18 years. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for brevity) on 08.07.2016. In her statement, she disclosed that in the evening at 7:00-7:30 pm, when she was going towards the eastern side of her village to ease herself, the aforesaid four F.I.R. named accused persons had kidnapped her, forced her to sit in a vehicle after gagging and blindfolding her and had taken her to Banaras. At Banaras Railway Station, three (the appellant's father and two others), out of the four returned whereas the appellant, who was having in his possession a country made pistol, stayed with her. From Banaras, the appellant took her to Delhi by train. She did not notice any police personnel in her train journey to Delhi. In the morning, they arrived in a room in Delhi. There is thereafter narration of physical and sexual assault caused on the victim by this appellant. She disclosed that the appellant would go for his duties after putting her in lock & key from outside, in the said room. Feeling high and dry, she started living with him and in the meanwhile he