The court emphasizes the necessity of credible evidence for determining age under juvenile law, ruling that consent is irrelevant if the victim is a minor, as established under POCSO.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment dated 20.12.2022 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’) and order on sentence dated 07.02.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order on sentence’), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in SC No. 58007/2016 arising out of FIR No. 346/2016, registered at Police Station Ranhola (‘FIR’).

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 328 /324/376D/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’).

3. By the impugned order on sentence, the learned ASJ sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment of twenty years for the offence under Section 376D of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs,5,000/- each; to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years for the offence under Section 328 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs,1,000/- each; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs,1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days. The sentences were directed to run concurrently, however, imprisonment in default of sentence was directed to run consecutively.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

a. On 10.05.2016, at the instance of the prosecutrix, the FIR was lodged at Police Station Ranhola for offences under Sections 376D/328/323/342/365/363 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

b. It is the case of the prosecution that about six months before the registration of the FIR, when the prosecutrix was going to the market from her home, two unknown boys (that is, the appellants) forcefully made her drink a cold drink after which she started feeling dizzy and fell unconscious.

c. It is alleged that when the prosecutrix regained consciousness, she was in a room and she felt slightly intoxicated. On being asked, the appellants told the prosecutrix that they were in Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. The appellants allegedly committed rape upon the prosecutrix there for a period of 10-12 days. It is alleged that the prosecutrix found out in the meantime that she was being confined in a rented room in Panchwati, Gwalior. After a few days, the prosecutrix also learnt about the identity of the appellants and that they were cousins.

d. From Gwalior, the appellant Raghunath allegedly took the prosecutrix to his village Khajri, Mohtala, Pachan District, Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh. During this time, the appellant Raghunath allegedly raped the prosecutrix multiple times. It is alleged that while staying in Tikamgarh, the appellant Raghunath got the signatures of the prosecutrix on some papers and told her that they had entered into a Signature Not Verified court marriage. The appellant Raghunath further established physical relations with the prosecutrix on a daily basis. It is alleged that the prosecutrix lived in the house of the appellant Raghunath like a married lady and the parents, brother and sister of the appellant Raghunath were also living in the same house. It is alleged that the appellant Raghunath used to take the prosecutrix to his work everyday.

e. On 02.05.2016, the appellant Raghunath had beaten the prosecutrix very badly and tied her in the room. The prosecutrix cried a lot and was saved by the neighbours. The neighbours also took the number of her father from the prosecutrix and called him. Thereafter, on 03.05.2016, the father of the prosecutrix took her back home.

f. During medical examination, multiple bruises and laceration marks were found on both legs of the prosecutrix. The date of birth of the prosecutrix was found to be 09.02.2000 as per her school certificate.

g. The learned ASJ, by the impugned judgment, acquitted the appellants of the offences under Sections 363 /365/366 of the IPC and held them guilty for the offences under Sections 328 /32