The sole testimony of a child victim can suffice for conviction if credible, and age determination must rely on conclusive evidence such as school records.

Judgment :

(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (FTC), Balod, District Balod (CG) in Special Criminal Case POCSO No. 67/2019 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the commission of offence as described below :

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.07.2019, at about 5.00 pm. when the prosecutrix/victim was playing with her friends, at that point of time, the appellant came there and caught her hand and forcefully took her to his house and sent her friends by giving 10/- each to buy some eatable. It is alleged that the appellant tried to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim and when she raised cries he left her. When her grandmother returned from the market, her friends narrated about the incident and the report was lodged against the appellant for the offence under Sections 363,376 IPC and Section 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The prosecutrix was medically examined and statement was recorded at the Child Welfare Committee, Balod. Spot map was prepared and the date of birth certificate and clothes worn by the prosecutrix and the school admission and discharge register were seized. Appellant was arrested and he was also medically examined and his underwear was seized and the seized clothes were sent for chemical examination and after investigation, the trial court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 363 , 376 (2)(I) IPC and Sections 5 (M)/6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.

3. 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. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to bring home the charges.

4. 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 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the appellant.

5. 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, the school admission and discharge register (Ex. P-13C) of the victim has been seized, which shows that date of birth of victim is 20.11.2011 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 has been argued that the MLC report Ex.P-15, the doctor has not found any external injury on the private parts of the victim. He further submits that except victim, there is no credible evidence in support of her statement and therefore, only on the basis of deposition of victim holding the appellant guilty by the learned trial Court is not sustainable and the alleged offence of the IPC and the POCSO Act are not made out against the appellant, hence, he is entitled for acquittal.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the victim was minor and there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony since there was no reason for her to falsely implicate the appellant. She submits that when her grandmother came and opened the door and found the victim and the appellant. She further submits that the law enunciated with regard to the conviction of the a