The court emphasized the necessity of a clear charge for the accused's defense and ruled that the evidence did not substantiate the appellant's claims of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The two short questions involved in this criminal appeal are as follows :-

I. Whether the appellant has suffered prejudice on account of the framing of charge by the trial Court stating that on 25/08/2022, the appellant has committed the offence in question and holding him guilty for committing the said offence on other dates as well ?

II. Whether the copy of school attendance register obtained by the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is a public document and certified copy of a public document within the meaning of Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively ?

2. The aforesaid questions of law arise for consideration on the following factual backdrop :-

(i) Case of the prosecution is that on 25/08/2022 at about 3 PM, the appellant herein, who was a Lecturer at Government High School, Kosmatra, Block and Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli, sexually assaulted minor victim, aged about 13 years (student of the said school), knowing fully well that she belonged to Scheduled Caste/Tribe and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC read with Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes/Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(ii) On the complaint of victim’s mother (PW-1), first information report was registered against the appellant vide Ex. P/2 and the matter was taken into investigation. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC vide Ex. P/7, spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/14, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Seizure of victim’s school admission receipt was made from the Principal vide Ex. P/10C. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences which was committed to the Court of Special Judge for trial in accordance with law.

(iii) In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and brought on record 16 documents. The statement of the appellant was taken under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied guilt. In addition to this, on behalf of the appellant, a copy of the attendance register was filed which was obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter “RTI”) and plea of alibi was taken stating that on the date of offence i.e. 25/08/2022, the appellant was on casual leave.

(iv) However, the trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, rejected the plea of the appellant based on this unexhibited document holding that other than 25/08/2022, the appellant had also committed the offence on other dates as well and proceeded to convict him for the offence punishable under Sections 354 of IPC read with Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of non-payment of fine, further S.I. for 1 month.

3. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that on the date of offence i.e. 25/08/2022, the appellant was on casual leave which is proved by the Attendance Register obtained under the RTI and therefore, the question of commission of offence by him does not arise. Moreover, it is not the case of the prosecution that despite being on casual leave, the appellant attended the school on that day and committed the offence and since the charge levelled against the appellant is very specific and the date and time of offence is clearly mentioned, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court that other than 25/08/2022, the offence was also committed by the appellant on other dates as well is absolutely illegal and bad in law, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. He would further submit th