JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Heard.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06/03/2020 passed by the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 02/2018, whereby, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :-

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22/10/2017 the complainant P.D. lodged a report that on 21/10/2017, the prosecutrix was sitting outside of her house and after some time she was not found. However, till late night when she did not return, the complainant enquired and on presumption that the appellant No.1 Bharat Patel has enticed away the minor girl from the lawful custody, lodged the FIR (Ex.P/3) thereby the case was registered under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. Subsequently on 08/11/2017, the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of appellant No. 1 Bharat Patel and she was subjected to medical examination and after the medical examination appellant No. 1 was arrested and in order to aid and abet the offence, appellant No. 2 Bhanu Dewangan and appellant No.3 Ram Niwas Pal @ Gaderia were also arrested. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC and necessary statements were also recorded. The birth report from the Municipality of Champa was seized vide Ex. P/24, apart from dakhil-kharij register of the school Ex.P/18 ‘C’ wherein date of birth of the prosecutrix was shown to be 26/02/2002 and after recording the statement of the relevant witnesses charge-sheet was filed. The appellants abjured their guilt during the course of the trial and claimed to be tried. The prosecution adduced evidence of as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. The learned trial Court after evaluation of the evidence convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, hence this appeal.

4. (i) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the medical report Ex.P/6 would show that no attempt of forceful sexual intercourse was ever committed by appellant No.1, which is being proved by Dr. A. S. (PW-4) and there was inconsistency about the date of recovery as 164 of Cr.P.C. the statement of the victim would show that she stated that she was recovered from the possession of the appellant No. 1 on 07/11/2017, whereas the recovery memo Ex.P/8 which is proved by I.O. Romanus Toppo (PW-7) was of 08/11/2017 and the record would show the same I.O. issued notice to accused to appear before Champa on 10/11/2017, therefore, the document of the prosecution itself was contradictory in nature.

4 (ii) He further submits that the prosecution has further failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix beyond the reasonable doubt as on the date of incident according to prosecution, prosecutrix was more than 15 years and despite the suggestion for radiological test, the victim was not subjected to it. He would submits that the dakhil kharij register Ex.18 ‘C’, which has been filed in double in number, on