IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the necessity for conclusive evidence in criminal cases, particularly in charges involving serious offenses like murder and sexual assault, and the importance of correctly establishing the victim's age under the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

We have heard Mr. Ansul, the learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Mishra for the State.

2. The appellant stands convicted under Sections 302, 376, 366(A) and 201 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 vide judgment dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge cum Children Court, Sitamarhi in Trial No.11/2018, (Reg. No. 766/2018) and by order dated 28.01.2021, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer imprisonment for six months each for the offences under Sections 302 and 376 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. For the offence under Section 366(A), the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years, to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to suffer imprisonment for three months. For the offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C., the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further imprisonment for one month. The sentences however, have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. The minor daughter of the Informant (P.W.8) is alleged to have been raped, killed and thrown in the graveyard of the village of the Informant.

4. The FIR was lodged by P.W.8 (mother of the deceased) at about 11.00 A.M. in the graveyard which was recorded by the S.I. of Police, Sunil Kumar Srivastava (P.W.10). P.W.8 has alleged that in the night of 23.04.2016, she slept along with her daughter (deceased) at about 10.00 P.M.. When she awoke at about 3.00 O’clock in the morning, she did not find her daughter. She looked for her everywhere but could not find her. The main door of the house was found to be open. She immediately contacted her relatives staying in the same house and also went out in search of her daughter along with those relatives. At about 8.30 in the morning on 24.04.2016, some villagers told her that the dead body of a girl is lying in the “Budhia Gachhi” graveyard. On such information, she and her brothers-in-law viz. Nathuni Sah (P.W.1) and Ram Narayan Sah (P.W.2) went to the graveyard and came back with the information that the dead body is that of the daughter of (P.W.8). Thereafter, Therefore, the entire family went to the graveyard. Looking at the dead body from close quarters, it was found by her that the deceased had bled through her nose and there were marks of violence on her jaws. There was swelling at the back of the neck of the deceased. In the same breath, P.W.8 has further stated that her villager viz. the appellant had been harassing the deceased for last one year and had been coaxing her to marry him or else she would be killed. This had become very frequent in the last one month but her daughter was not ready for any matrimonial alliance with the appellant. She therefore suspected that the appellant along with his associates has kidnapped the victim and strangulated her to death and threw her dead body in the graveyard.

5. On the basis of the aforenoted fardbeyan statement, Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.151/2016 dated 24.04.2016 was registered for investigation under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the I.P.C.

6. The Informant has disclosed the age of her daughter to be 18 years in the F.I.R. Precisely, for this reason, no case under the POCSO Act, 2012 was initially registered.

7. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant but, as it appears from the records of this case, the investigation with respect to other suspected accused persons remained pending. The appellant was tried for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 366(A) of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

8. It may also be stated here that the case of the appellant was placed before the J.J.B., Sitamarhi where the appellant was declared to be a child in conflict with law but, since he was more than 16 years of the age at the time of