Charges under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act require proof of inducement or coercion, which was not established as the victim left voluntarily.

JUDGMENT :

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties.

2.1 Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.7.2023, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hamirpur, in Special Sessions Trial No.397 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2020, under sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur (State of UP vs. Julius Masih @ Sintu Masih @ Ajay). By the impugned order learned Special Judge has disposed of application 25-Kha with finding that a prima facie case is made out against the accused Julius Masih @ Sintu Masih @ Ajay to put him on trial for charge under sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. The learned court below has also observed that on perusal of academic documents produced on behalf of the prosecution, the date of birth of victim is found to be 25.11.2004. Accordingly, she was of 15 years, 7 months of age on the date of incident.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that according to the the prosecution version the informant Prakash Soni lodged an FIR on the basis of written report at police station Maudaha, District Hamipur on 12.6.2020 that his daughter whose date of birth is 25.11.2004 had gone to purchase some household goods on 11.6.2020, at 5:00 PM at a grocery shop lying on the side of road, but she did not come back; the informant tried to gather her whereabouts and he came to know that his daughter was seen in the company of Julius Masih @ Sintu Masih @ Ajay as both were moving towards Bada Chauraha. He believed that his minor daughter was seduced and kidnapped by accused Chintu Masih and any untoward incident might have occurred with her. The FIR was lodged against named accused under Section 363 and 366 IPC. The police investigated the case and recorded statement of victim twice under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her statement was also recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation. In statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she categorically stated that her age is 19 years as per her date of birth recorded in Birth Certificate by Nagar Palika, Hamirpur issued on 21.9.2019, which is 13.1.2001. In fact, her date of birth in her High School Marksheet shown as 25.12.2004 has been wrongly recorded on the information supplied by her parents. She willingly accompanied the accused. She herself called the accused Julius Masih @ Sintu Masih @ Ajay on 11.6.2020 when she went out of her house on pretext of purchasing some household goods. When the accused visited her, they went together. They had already solemnized marriage on 27.1.2020 and got the marriage registered on 17.3.2020 with Registrar of Marriages. She has also stated that they left their home with intention that they would live together. He had not kidnapped her. She accompanied him on her own volition. She has studied up to class 11th and she is ready to get herself medically examined. Similar statements were give by her to the Investigating Officer and a video CD has been prepared of her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The revisionist got converted to Hindu religion by remnciating Christianity prior to solemnize marriage at Arya Samaj in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that nevertheless the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the revisionist for charges under Section 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 4(2) of POCSO Act only due to the fact that as per the school record, the victim was minor. He next submitted that the trial judge has not placed reliance on the conclusion of Investigating Officer with regard to charges for which the revisionist has been sent up for trial by the Investigating Officer and dropped the charge under Sec