IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the prosecutrix's age and consent in cases involving offences under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376 and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the evidentiary value of school registers and transfer certificates in determining age.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23-04-2001, passed by the Special Judge of Special Court Raipur (C.G.) under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in Sessions Trial No.297/2000, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that both the parties are residents of same village-Devgaon. In the intervening night of 23rd and 24th of June, 2000, the appellant went to the house of the prosecutrix (PW-5) who was below 16 years of age and took the prosecutrix to Bangolibhata and from there in a taxi to Raipur and then by bus to Patan. From there, he took her in his aunt-Fenkan Bai's house at village Karanja, Bhilai and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will. Due to non-presence of her minor daughter at home, her father (PW-3) lodged a report at police station and also for the reason that the appellant was also not in the village. Therefore, a named FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered against the appellant at police station Kharora bearing Crime No.110/2000 on 24/06/2000. On 26/06/2000, father (PW-3) and uncle brought the prosecutrix from village Karanja and produced before the police station, and medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted. The underwear and slides were sent for FSL to chemical examination. FSL report received negative. In the medical examination of the prosecutrix, no definite opinion was given regarding sexual intercourse. The doctor advised to do X-ray to check the age of the prosecutrix but ossification test was not conducted. The school admission register of school of prosecutrix (Ex.P-2) and transfer certificate (Ex.P-3) were seized, according to which, date of birth of prosecutrix was recorded as 20/05/1983. After investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. Statements of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied circumstances appearing against him in prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. The appellant has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

4. After hearing both the parties, the trial court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the date of birth of prosecutrix (PW-5) has not been proved as conclusive evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was under 16 or 18 years of age at the time of incident. The fact that the prosecutrix was forcibly raped has not been confirmed even by medical evidence. The case is also not supported by the FSL report. The prosecutrix was a consenting party. The case against the appellant has not been proved. There is lack of definitive evidence against the appellant. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is not based on conclusive and reliable evidence. Therefore, the appellant may be acquitted of the charges leveled against him by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the conclusion given by the trial court regarding conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on sufficient and reliable evidence, which does not require a