IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the prosecution must prove the victim's age as under 18 years to apply the provisions of the POCSO Act, and failure to do so results in the reversal of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order the of sentence dated 05.01.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Exclusive (POCSO) Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI, Gaya in POCSO Case No. 55 of 2021 CIS No. POCSO 55 of 2021 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 12 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. We are not disclosing the name of the victim and the prosecution's witnesses who are closely related to the victim so as to conceal the victim’s identity.

3. The victim (PW-1) is the informant of the concerned Mahila P.S. Case No. 12 of 2021 registered on 20.03.2021 for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’ in short). The victim alleged in her written statement addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Mahila PS dated 20.03.2021 that she and the appellant had developed amorous relationship with each other in course of which they established physical relationship consequent upon which the victim became pregnant. When she disclosed to the appellant about her pregnancy, he declined to owe the foetus. Despite best efforts, the appellant declined to accept that the foetus which the victim was carrying a result of their physical relationship. The victim asserted in her written statement that her age was fifteen and half years as on the date of lodging of the FIR.

4. The victim was subjected to medical examination. The medical board found her age to be more than 19 years, who was carrying six months’ pregnancy at the time of medical examination. The medical board further found that nearly one year back, a one-month's pregnancy was got terminated.

5. Be that as it may, the police upon completion of investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant for commission of the offences punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act, whereupon cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Section 376(2) and 376(3) of the IPC and section 6 of the POCSO Act. Subsequently, charges were framed against the appellant for commission of the offences punishable under Section 376(2) and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

6. At the trial, prosecution examined altogether five witnesses to substantiate the charge, including the victim (PW1), her mother (PW-2), the Doctor (PW-3), the brother of the victim (PW-4) and the I.O. of the case (PW-5). In addition to the documentary evidence adduced at the trial, prosecution also brought on record following documentary evidence to substantiate the charge:

7. Upon closure of the prosecution's evidence the appellant was questioned under section 313 of the CrPC so as to give him an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances emerging against him based on the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses. The appellant answered in negative the questions which referred to incriminating circumstances.

8. The trial court, after having appreciated the evidence adduced at the trial reached a conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove based, on the evidence adduced at