IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must provide conclusive evidence of a victim's age in POCSO cases; reliance on school records alone is insufficient without corroborative proof.

ORDER :

1. These criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.02.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Saraipali, District -Mahasmund, (CG) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.23/2018, whereby appellants/accused (Smt. Vrindavati & Smt. Neelandri in CRA Nos. 516 & 421 of 2022) stand convicted and sentence as under:

However, appellant/accused Navin Shukla in CRA No.657 of 2022) stand convicted and sentence as under:

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is this that PW-5/mother of victim/prosecutrix lodged report to the concerned Police Station alleging that on 10.07.2018 appellants/accused abducted her minor daughter and, thereafter, appellant/Navin Sahu has committed forceful sexual intercourse with her at his house at village -Nanakpali. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellants and they were arrested.

3. On completion of investigation, final report/charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376/34 of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act.

4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 15 witnesses. Statement of appellants (accused) were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they have denied all incriminating evidence appearing against the, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by them in their defence.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

6. Learned counsels for the appellants submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. As per case of prosecution, on the date of alleged incident victim/prosecutrix was below 18 years of age, however, no authentic documentary proof was filed in order to show that she was a minor girl on that date. Date of birth of prosecutrix mentioned as 06.12.2002 in Dhakhil Kharij Panji (Ex.P-4/C) cannot be said to be conclusive as the author of the said document could not be examined. Further, PW-3/father of prosecutrix has categorically stated in his deposition that he does not know the DOB of prosecutrix and also failed to explain that on what basis said entry was made in Dakhil Kharij register. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that prosecutrix was born on 04.04.2000, but did not produce birth certificate/matriculation certificate or any other document regarding DOB of prosecutrix.

Learned counsels further submit that trial Court convicted the appellants relied upon the statement of victim/prosecutrix recorded recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC on 17.07.2018, however, her statement is not reliable as there are many contradictions and omissions in her statements, which was not considered properly by trial Court. From the statement of prosecutrix, it reflects that she is