IMPORTANT POINT
In case of doubt as to age of a child, the competent authority has to determine of the age as per section 94 of the Act. If the date of birth certificate from the school, first certificate among section 94 of the Act, can be relied on, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, such certificates can be accepted as conclusive proof of age of the victim in a criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed on him in S.C.No.871 of 2016 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The appellant is the sole accused in the case.

2. The accusation in the case is that the accused who is a priest in the temple near the residence of the victim girl aged 16 years developed an intimacy with the victim girl and by giving her a false promise to marry, the accused took her on 11.07.2016 to various places and had committed penetrative sexual assault on her and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act).

3. On the accused pleading not guilty of the charges, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses as PW1 to PW22 and proved 25 documents as Exhibits P1 to P25. The prosecution has also caused one of its witnesses to identify the material object, MO1. The accused was, thereupon, questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) as regards the incriminating evidence brought out by the prosecution. The accused denied the same and maintained that he is innocent. Since the trial court did not find the case to be one fit for acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the accused was called upon to enter on his defence. The accused did not adduce any evidence.

4. Among the witnesses examined, PW1 is the victim girl. She has proved Ext.P1 statement given by her before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code. PW2 is the father of the victim girl. He has proved Ext.P2 First Information Statement. PW3 is the President of the Temple where the accused was working as priest at the time of occurrence. PW4 is the auto driver to whom the accused had sold his mobile phone at Pazhani. PW4 has proved Ext.P4 slip given by the victim girl to him and also identified MO1 mobile phone. PW5 is the aunt of the accused in whose residence the accused had resided with the victim girl for two days. PW7 is the doctor who has examined the victim girl and issued Ext.P6 Medical report. PW8 is the doctor who has examined the accused and issued Ext.P7 Potency Certificate. PW11 is the security personnel attached to Kodungalloor Kurumba Temple, where the accused had stayed with the victim girl for one day. PWs.19, 20 and 21 are the police officers who have investigated the case. PW22 is the Principal of the school where the victim girl was pursuing her studies at the time of occurrence. PW22 has proved Ext.P25 certificate showing the date of birth of the victim.

5. On an appraisal of the materials on record, the court below found that the prosecution has not established beyond doubt that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim girl at the premises of the Kodungalloor Kurumba Temple. The court, however, found that the prosecution has established its case that the accused took the victim girl on 11.07.2016 to various places and had sexual intercourse with her at the residence of PW5 and he is, therefore, guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376(1) of the IPC and Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The accused was consequently convicted for the aforesaid offences and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another term of two months under Section 366 of the IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.25000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another term of four months under Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. In the light of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, no separate sentence was imposed on the accused under Section 376(1) of the IPC. The accused is aggrieved by the c