IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the appellant's juvenile status and the application of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 in providing appropriate relief.

JUDGMENT :

Arvind Kumar Verma, J

Heard.

1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15/12/2021 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 109/2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Second Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act) District Durg (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 363, 366A & 376(3) of the IPC & Sections 5(B ) & 6 of the POCSO Act, however, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section and 376(3) of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 3 year with fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 363 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 4000/- under Section 366(A) of the IPC, with default stipulations.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is on 10/09/2018 at about 08:30 pm, the prosecutrix aged about 13 years after taking a bag along with him, left her house without informing to anyone. When she did not return and her whereabouts could not be traced out, a missing report was lodged, which was taken into investigation by the Police. While the investigation was going on, the prosecutrix was produced by her father on 12/09/2018 and Baramdagi Panchnama (Ex.P/1) was prepared. Subsequently, the statement of the prosecutrix as well as the statement of the witnesses were recorded. Subsequently, the prosecutrix was medically examined vide Ex.P/17 & 18. The appellant was also medically examined vide Ex.P/6. Statement of the prosecutrix (Ex.P/4) under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C was recorder. During investigation, spot map (Ex.P/14) was prepared. In relation to date of birth of the prosecutrix, Dakhil Kharij register (Ex.P/9C) was seized. During medical examination, the doctor had prepared 2 vaginal slides of the victim. The clothes of the appellant was seized vide seizure (Ex.P/28). The prepared vaginal slides and clothes of the appellant were sent for FSL examination vide Ex.P/33. The FSL report is Ex.P/35. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the Court.

3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied guilt.

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 15/12/2021 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that on the date of alleged offence, the appellant was below 17 years of age as his date of birth is 23/11/2001 as per his date of birth certificate. He submits that the Juvenile Justice Board without any enquiry held the appellant as adult which is contrary to the law. He submits that no efforts were made to seize birth certificate of the appellant from school. He further submits that there is no conclusive proof or even adequate proof with regard to the date of birth of the prosecutrix. He further submits that Medical Officer has not supported the prosecution case and has not confirmed the finding regarding sexual intercourse. He further submits that looking to the above factual scenario, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

6. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Laywer appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. There is clear evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

8.