In crimes involving minors, school admission registers or equivalent educational certificates constitute the primary evidence for age determination. Where found reliable and unchallenged, consistent oral testimony of the victim and family members regarding age is admissible and sufficient to support a conviction, even in the absence of further documents.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. The sole accused in S.C.No.193 of 2016 on the files of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (`POCSO Act’ for short hereafter), Manjeri, has filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the judgment under challenge and the records of the Special Court.

3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short hereafter) as well as under Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(l), 5(o), 5(p) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and under Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (`JJ Act’ for short), by the appellant. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused had subjected the victim to aggravated sexual assault and made her pregnant, and in consequence thereof she had given birth to a child at Eranad Hospital, Manjeri.

4. The learned Special Judge proceeded with trial of the matter on completing pre-trial formalities. During trial, PW1 to PW23 were examined and Exts.P1 to P24 were marked on the side of prosecution. No defence evidence was adduced.

5. On evaluation of evidence and after hearing both sides, the learned Special Judge found that the accused had committed the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC as well as under Sections 5(j)(ii) r/w 6, 5(l) r/w 6, 5(o) r/w 6, 5(p) r/w 6 of POCSO Act as well as under Section 23 of the JJ Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as under:

“1. Accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) U/s 5(1) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 4 (four) months.

2. The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) U/s 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 4 (four)months.

3. The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) U/s 5(o) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 4 (four)months.

4. The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) U/s 5(p) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 4 (four)months.

5. The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) U/s 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month.“

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that in this case even though the prosecution adduced evidence in support of the allegations, it failed to prove a vital point so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 23 of the J.J Act and the age of the victim as a minor, aged below 18 years, not at all proved properly. It is submitted that if at all sexual intercourse between the victim and the accused to be discernible from the prosecution case, the deposition of PW2, the victim herself, would reveal that it was a consensual sexual relationship and, therefore, none of the other offences would be attracted against the appellant/accused. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the instant case the prosecut