The prosecution must prove the victim's age beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on official records alone is insufficient without corroborative evidence.

Order :

(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated 27/08/2021 passed by the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) Bhanupratappur, District North-Bastar, Kanker, C.G. in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.06/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the father of the victim lodged a written report in police station Kodekurse on 05/10/2017 that his daughter, who is aged about 15 Years, is missing from 28/09/2017 when she had gone to attend the Durga Pooja at about 09.00 pm in the night and she did not return to home in the night. Thereafter on the next day i.e. on 29/09/2017 when the father searched the prosecutrix then someone told him that his daughter was in his agricultural field along with the present appellant. Thereafter, on 14/01/2019 the appellant produced the prosecutrix in the police station Bhanupratappu and the appellant was arrested.

4. The appellant abjured his guilt during trial and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 18 witnesses. The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim that she was a minor on the date of incident i.e. on 28/09/2017. He would further submit that the appellant and the prosecutrix has performed marriage and were living together as husband and wife for a considerable period of 1 & ½ years, therefore, the prosecutrix was a consenting party. He would next contend that the author of the Dakhil Kharij Register has not been examined and on medical examination of the prosecutrix no external or internal injuries were found. He would next contend that the prosecutrix has not stated anything against the appellant and she has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, no offence would be made out against the appellant and he prays that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be set aside and the appellant may be released by allowing the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution has proved the age of the victim to be below 18 years by producing the Dakhilkharij Register as also the statement of the prosecutrix wherein she stated that her date of birth is 05/03/2002 and the alleged incident since was stated to be in the year 2017 at that time she was below the age of 18 years and therefore, would be within the meaning of POCSO. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court is well merited which do not call for any interference.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence.

8. The primary question which comes to fore for adjudication is that as to whether the victim was minor or major on the date of incident?

9. The statement of V N (PW-8) Assistant Teacher would show that he do not know on what basis the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded in the School. He is not the author of the Dakhil Kharij Register and he do not know who has recorded the date of birth of the prosecutrix.

10. That, in the instant case the father S (PW-1) states that the date of birth of her daughter is 05.03.2002 and he lodged the missing report of his daughter and thereafter after one year found out his daughter and thereafter they handed ov