The court emphasized the necessity for the prosecution to prove the victim's age and elements of force beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving sexual offenses against minors.

JUDGMENT :

PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Surajpur, District-Surajpur in Special Sessions Case No. 30 of 2020 whereby appellant/accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that father of victim lodged a written report in the concerned police station alleging that in the morning of 11.03.2020, he found her daughter missing in his house. It is stated that in the night at about 3:00 a.m., she woke up and went out of the house. When he searched of her in nearby places, he was informed by one Sahnawaj son of Khurshid, that she was in talking terms with appellant. After getting the said information, he doubted that she might be in the company of appellant and thereafter he along with Ajim, Rayaj, Usman, Sarpanch of village and others went to house of appellant, inquired with him, upon which, he intimated that victim is in his house and brought her in front of them. It is also alleged in the complaint that victim informed him and others persons present that appellant committed sexual intercourse with her. Based on written report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered, statement of victim was recorded and appellant was arrested in connection with the crime bearing No.16/2020 registered by Police Station -Premnagar, District- Surajpur for alleged commission of offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and Sections 3 & 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "Act of 2012").After completion of investigation, police submitted final report for alleged commission of offence under Sections 365, 506, 376 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 2012. Learned trial Court upon appreciating the material available in charge sheet has framed charges under Sections 376, 365, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 2012. During course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 father of victim, PW2 victim, PW3 Dr. Nandini Kanwar who examined the prosecutrix, PW4 Jagatpal Pento Assistant Teacher, PW5 Dr. Neeraj Kumar Paikra who examined the appellant, PW6 Assistant Sub Inspector Anju Singh and PW7 O.P. Kujur, Inspector (Investigating Officer) and exhibited as many as 24 documents. Statement of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Upon appreciating documentary and oral evidence brought on record by prosecution and statement of accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. held appellant guilty for commission of offence under Sections 376, 365 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Act of 2012 and sentenced him for the period as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.

3. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned trial Court fell into error in convicting appellant for aforementioned sections of IPC and Act of 2012. He contended that for convicting a person/appellant under Section 3/4 of the Act of 2012, prosecution has to prove the fact that on the date of incident, victim was below 18 years of age. Proof of age should be beyond reasonable doubt in which prosecution utterly failed. He next contended that from the documentary and oral evidence as available in record, it is apparent that victim was a consenting party as she left her home in night at about 3:00 am and joined company of appellant. On the date of incident, along with victim, her mother, father, elder brother and his wife were also residing in the same house but she did not inform any of other family member. There was love affair between two. However, only beca