The credibility of a victim's testimony in sexual offenses is paramount; inconsistencies render the prosecution's case insufficient for conviction.

ORDER :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement dated 13.07.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, No-3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.31/2019 whereby, while acquitting the accused appellant (for brevity, ‘appellant’) under Section 13 /14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘Act of 2012’) as well as under Sections 67E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘Act of 2000’), he has been convicted under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 506 IPC as also under Section 5 (l)/6 of the Act of 2012 and sentenced under Section 376 (2)(n) in view of Section 42 of the Act of 2012 as well as under Section 5 06 as under:-

Section 376 (2)(n) IPC :- Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default; to further undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment.

Section 506 IPC :- 5 Years Rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default; to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment.

Sentences to run concurrently.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that on the written report dated 05.11.2012 (Ex.P1) lodged by the prosecutrix ‘M’ (identity concealed), an FIR No.666/2014 dated 06.11.2014 came to be lodged at Police Station Kanota, Jaipur Rural for the offence under Sections 376 , 354क, 354घ and 506 of IPC , Section 4 of the Act of 2012 and Sections 66क and 67क of the Act of 2000. It was alleged that the appellant used to harass her and subjected her to ‘wrongful act’ 10-12 times. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under (1)(2)(h)(m), 354क, 354घ, and 506 of , Sections 4 , 5(l)/6, 7/8, 9(l)/10 and 11/12 of the Act of 2012 and Sections 66क and 67क of the Act of 2000. Charges were framed against the appellant under (2)(n) and 506 of , Sections 5 (l)/6 and 13/14 of the Act of 2012 and Sections 66-E/67-A of the Act of 2000 whereupon, he pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. After trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove.

3. Assailing the judgement impugned dated 13.07.2020, learned counsel for the appellant-Shri R.B. Sharma Ganthola submits that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 17.07.1998; rather, she was major on the date of alleged incident, i.e., 10.01.2014. Elaborating his submission and inviting attention of this Court towards the Court statement of Shri Babulal (PW 2) and Smt. Seema Kumari (PW 4)-father and mother of the prosecutrix respectively, he submits that they have admitted that the date of birth of the prosecutrix mentioned in her school certificate as 17.07.1998 was out of guess work and there was no reliable material in support thereof. Learned counsel further submits that as per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was admitted in Class 1 in a Government School where she studied upto Class 5^th-6^th but, no document was produced by the prosecution to show her date of birth as reflected at the time of her admission in the Government School. Inviting attention of this Court towards Ex. P9A-the Secondary School Mark-sheet of the prosecutrix issued by the National Institute of Open Schooling, he submits that therein, her date of birth is shown as 17.07.1998 whereas, in her birth certificate issued on 10.01.2007 (EX.P12A), it is reflected as 15.03.1998. Learned counsel submits that this discrepancy raises a serious doubt with regard to the date