JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.9.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Special Court, Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 114/2018 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that father of the prosecutrix has lodged a report with the PS Masturi on 20.7.2018 alleging that his minor daughter aged about 16 years 8 months is studying in Class-10 at Government Girls High School, Masturi. On 19.7.2018, at 9 a.m. the prosecutrix left for the school and did not return. Thereafter a search was made, however, her whereabouts could not be traced. Some unknown person has allured and induced his daughter and abducted her. During investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and seizure was also effected, on the basis of which the appellant was arrested.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant, however, the appellant denied the same and claimed to be tried. The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant was also convicted under Section 376 of the IPC, however, as on the date of the incident i.e. 19/7/2018, the prosecutrix was minor, the appellant was sentenced under Section 4 of the POCSO Act since under the said section maximum sentence of life imprisonment is prescribed.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused pleaded innocence and false implication. However, he did not examine any defence witness.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the age of the victim/prosecutrix to be a minor. No authentic evidence was collected by the prosecution to show that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of the alleged incident. He further submits that only on the basis of School Admission Register Article ‘A-1’ though material on the basis of which the said entry was recorded, was not proved. Therefore, mere production of the School Admission Register, though a public document in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act, was not sufficient to prove the age of the prosecutrix. Authenticity of the entry would depend as to on whose instruction the said entry stood recorded and what was the source of his information. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the matters of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 584, Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2008) 13 SCC 133, Madan Mohan Singh and Others vs. Rajni Kant and Another, (2010) 9 SCC 209, C. Doddanarayana Reddy (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others vs. C. Jayarama Reddy (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 659.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecutrix and the appellant were in love with each