The credibility and acceptability of evidence, especially regarding the age of a minor, are crucial in cases involving offenses against children.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

This Criminal Jail Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 07.08.2015/10.08.2015, passed by the Judge, Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2014, “State vs. Suraj Pal”, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act, 2012”) read with Section 42 of the Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 376 (2) of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo further additional simple imprisonment for a period of six months. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo further additional simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that the informant, father of the prosecutrix, informed the Police Station through his written information (Ext.Ka.1) regarding missing her daughter. According to the said information, on 31.08.2013 at around 9.00 a.m., when the informant and his wife were not at house, his daughter, aged about 16 years (prosecutrix), went to get water at the hand pump, located near the house of the informant. When she did not return home, a search was undertaken.

3. The said information was registered at 19.15 hrs. on 21.09.2013. On 29.10.2013, the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of the appellant and the appellant was arrested. On the same day, i.e. on 29.10.2013, the medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted. Statements of the prosecutrix were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973. During the investigation, a Transfer Certificate of the prosecutrix’s school was obtained. After the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.12) was filed by Sub-Inspector Bhim Bhaskar Arya (PW8).

4. The charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and an additional charge under Section 6 of the Act, 2012 were framed against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The trial court recorded the statements of eight prosecution witnesses.

6. The appellant pleaded innocence and false implication in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7. The appellant has not adduced any defence evidence.

8. The trial court appraised the evidence adduced before it and held that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, awarded by the trial court, the appellant appealed to this Court.

10. Mr. D.N. Sharma, the learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant, would contend that the appellant has been falsely implicated; the appellant and the prosecutrix fell in love with each other; both of them got married according to Hindu customs in Arya Samaj Mandir; at the time of the marriage, the age of the appellant was 25 years and that of the prosecutrix was 23 years; their marriage was being opposed by the prosecutrix’s father and his relatives; the appellant and the prosecutrix had threat perception at the hands of the father and other relatives of the prosecutrix, therefore, they had filed a Writ Petition (C No.52604 of 2013) before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad claiming protection of their life.

11. Mr. D.N. Sharma, the learned Amicus Curiae, further submitted that after the recovery of the prosecutrix, she wa