The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive proof of the victim's age for conviction under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

S. K. SAHOO, J.

1. The appellant Sagar Kuldi faced trial in the Court of the learned Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal in C.T./Special Case No.07 of 2013 for the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(i)/506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter for short ‘POCSO Act’).

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2015 though acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, however, found him guilty under section 6 of the POCSO Act as well as section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for a period of six months for both the offences and the sentences were directed to concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report lodged by the victim on 15.06.2013 before the Inspector in charge, Parjang police station is that on that day at about 12.00 noon while she had been to Malajharan Sahi for grazing of goats, the appellant Sagar Kulidi was also present there and he was also grazing the goats and he made the victim nude forcibly and committed rape on her and also threatened her with dire consequence not to disclose the incident before anybody.

On the basis such first information report, Parjang P.S. Case No. 112 of 2013 was registered on 15.06.2013 under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. P.W.3 Pradeep Kumar Das, who was the Inspector in charge of Parjang police station, after registration of the case, took up investigation, examined the informant (victim) and other witnesses. He visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.2) and on the next date i.e. on 16.06.2013, he arrested the appellant and sent him for medical examination to C.H.C., Parjang. He also sent the victim for medical examination to C.H.C., Parjang where P.W.4 Dr. Madhusudan Jena examined both the victim as well as the appellant and prepared their medical examination reports. The escort party, who had taken the appellant as well as the victim for medical examination, produced some sample items collected by doctors which were seized under seizure lists Exts.3 and 5. The wearing apparels of the appellant were seized under seizure list Ext.4 and that of the victim were also seized on her production under seizure list Ext.6. The medical examination reports were obtained on 30.06.2013. P.W.3 handed over the charge of investigation to P.W.5 Bamadev Sankhual who re-examined the informant and other witnesses, made a prayer to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar to dispatch the exhibits to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh for chemical examination and after completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet on 14.08.2013 under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.

4. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial after observing due committal procedure where the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant as aforesaid and since the appellant refuted the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt.

5. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses.

P.W.1 Gurubari Kuldi is the mother of the victim and she stated that on the date of occurrence at about 11.00 a.m., the victim came crying to the house and disclosed about the commission of rape on her by the appellant and she noticed the wearing apparels of the victim were stained with blood and injuries on her right hand and private part. She intimated the fact to her husband and ultimately a meeting was convened in the village and the appellant was called to the meeting but he did not agree to the accusation leveled against him.

P.W.2 is the victim who narrated the incident and she