IMPORTANT POINT
The determination of a victim's age and the use of conclusive scientific evidence, such as DNA and FSL reports, are crucial in cases of sexual offences against minors.

JUDGMENT ON BOARD :

Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) South Bastar, Dantewada, District – South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 07/2020, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable U/s 201 of IPC and U/s 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 5 years & fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year and Life Imprisonment & fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that between August 2019 to October 2019 on 17.01.2020, the present appellant, being a step father of the victim, who on the date of incident was a minor, outraged the modesty of the victim by aggravated penetrative sexual assault resulting in pregnancy and to cover up the act lodged a false police complaint against a person named Hunga at Police Station, Frazerpur Parpa, Over the complaint, an FIR was registered by Police Station Kaukonda against Hunga under Section 376, 506 Part II of IPC. During investigation, statement of the victim under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) was recorded and during counseling at Juvenile Justice Board, the victim confessed that it was the appellant who has committed the offence and the appellant was arrested.

3. After investigation, the appellant was charged with offence punishable under Section 376(3), 201 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

4. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

5. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents to bring home the charges.

6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who have committed aforesaid offence, convicted and sentenced him in the aforementioned manner, against which the appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred by the appellant.

7. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that as per case of the prosecution, victim was minor on the date of incident, but this fact has not been proved by adducing lawful evidence. In this regard, only Dakhil-Kharij register (Ex. P-11A) of the victim has been seized, which shows that date of birth of victim is 02- 01-2006, but it has not been proved by any of the witnesses that, on what basis aforesaid date of birth was recorded in the school. It is further submitted that since prosecution has failed to prove by adducing cogent evidence that, on the date of incident, victim was minor, hence the finding recorded by learned trial Court in this regard is not sustainable. He further argued that the victim (PW-2) along with her mother (PW-1) have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case, they both could not adduce evidence regarding the date of birth of the victim, which raises suspicion regarding the correct date of birth. He submitted that statement of victim before counselor of the Juvenile Justice Board has been heavily relied upon by the learned trial Court to convict the present appellant and not her deposition before the trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be dismissed.

8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the offences committed by the appellant were heinous in nature and thus, the learned trial Court had rightly convicted him. He submitted that the trial Court had considered all the argumen