Point of Law : Crime against women and Children - Procuration of minor girl - Determination of age of Prosecutrix - Conviction Upheld - It is well established that at time of incident, prosecutrix was aged about 16 years and 4 months - Since her age was below 18 years at time of incident, her consent cannot be considered to be a valid consent.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 15.6.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Special Sessions Trial No.15 of 2015, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. According to the prosecution case, at the relevant time, age of the prosecutrix (PW3) was about 16 years and 4 months. According to the entries of Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P21C), her date of birth is 28.4.1999 and the date of incident is 17.2.2015. On 18.2.2015, father of the prosecutrix, namely, Tankor Narayan (PW4) lodged First Information Report (Ex.P7) of missing of the prosecutrix on the basis of which an offence was registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered from Bus Stand Hasaud on 10.8.2015 vide Ex.P28. Her statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of which other offences were added. Statements of other witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. The Trial Court framed charges against him.

3. To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been examined in his defence.

4. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in 1st paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court without there being sufficient and clinching evidence on record. From perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix (PW3), it appears that she was a consenting party and due to love relationship with the Appellant she herself left her house and joined the company of the Appellant. With regard to her age, statements of her mother Anita Chandra (PW2) and father Tankor Narayan (PW4) are contradictory. Therefore, their statements are not reliable. The author of the entries of Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P21C) has also not been examined and on what basis the said entries were recorded is not made clear and, therefore, the entries of Dakhil Kharij Register also do not support the case of the prosecution. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years at the time of incident, is not established. In this regard, reliance was placed on Madan Lal v. Dr. Jaswant Batra, 1994 Cri.L.J. 1767, Bapulal v. State of M.P., 2002(3) MPHT 70, Lalta Prasad v. State of M.P., (1979) 4 SCC 193 and Raunki Saroop v. State, 1970 Cri.L.J. 1383.

6. Opposing the above arguments, Learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court including statements of the witnesses and other material.

8. As regards the incident, the prosecutrix (PW3), in her Court statement deposed that on 17.2.2015 at about 2:00 p.m., the Appellant gave her a telephonic call and telling