The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the POCSO Act and IPC; mere age of the victim is insufficient without credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The sole appellant/Santu Paswan @ Sintu Paswan been convicted for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short the POCSO Act, 2012) vide judgment dated 05.12.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-Cum-Special Court, S.C./S.T. & POCSO Act, Jamui in POCSO Case No. 38 of 2022, arising out of Jhajha P.S. Case No. 337 of 2022. By order dated 11.12.2023, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for a period of two years for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

3. The victim (P.W. 1), who claimed to be of sixteen years of age at the time of the occurrence, has alleged that she was enticed away by the appellant, who kept her in confinement for two days, i.e., from 10.08.2022 to 12.08.2022, and during this period, she was raped by him. Later, the appellant is said to have brought her near the village road and left her there.

4. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the mother of the victim, who has been examined as P.W. 2. She, in her written report addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of the Jhajha Police Station, has alleged that the appellant took away her sixteen years old daughter. Since she or other family members had no clue about the victim, they waited for two days. The victim came back home on 12.08.2022.

5. Thereafter, on 14.08.2022, the written report was lodged, which gave rise to Jhajha P.S. Case No. 337 of 2022, dated 14.08.2022, instituted for the offences under Sections 366(A) & 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

6. The victim (P.W. 1) in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also has supported the prosecution case of her having been raped by the appellant for two days.

7. At the trial, the victim narrated the same story.

8. However, we have found certain features in her deposition, which makes it absolutely unreliable.

9. The victim was enticed away by the appellant on 10.08.2022 at around 06:00 P.M. from near her house. Thereafter, she was brought to a desolate place where she was raped. The victim was then taken to another place where also she was raped. On 12.08.2022, the appellant is alleged to have left her on the main road near her house. The victim came back home and narrated about the occurrence to her mother. In fact, the appellant, according to the victim, offered to marry her, but she refused straightaway. She was also threatened that in case she reported the matter or supported the case, she, her brother and father would be killed. While she was coming back home from Dhuatoli, a nearby place, she was abducted by the appellant. She was asked to sit on a motorcycle. Instead of taking her to any known destination, she was taken to a lonely place. All this while, it appears that she did not raise any alarm. The appellant is alleged to have told the victim that he had some work elsewhere. This was the only reason for the victim not to doubt the appellant at that point of time. Later, according to the victim, finding no one around, he raped her. However, the victim could not locate the place where the occurrence took place. She was then taken to a house. The victim, till the time of her cross-examination, did not have any idea as to the ownership of the house. She has also not spoken about any other member present in the house. In that house, the victim claims to have been raped. She did not tell anybody in that house about the occurrence. When she was brought back by the appellant and left near the main road, then also she did not raise any alarm. She informed nobody else except her mother. She could not assign any reason for two days’ delay in reporting the matter to the police.

10. The victim has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not receive any injury on her body. Sometim