The importance of conclusive evidence regarding the age of the victim and the absence of fraudulent intention in the alleged marriage were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appeal is filed against the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 366, 506, 496, 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO’ Act).

2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that PW2 who is father of PW1 having found that PW1 was missing after going to college on 10.02.2014, filed a complaint with the police under Ex.P1 on 15.02.2014. After enquiring with the relatives and other friends PW2 suspected the appellant to be the reason for his daughter missing. A complaint was registered as ‘girl missing’ and on 25.02.2014, having recorded the statement of one Shiva Kumar (PW3) who saw Appellant and Pw1 going together, the police altered the section of law to 366-A of Indian Penal Code. On 02.03.2014 PW1-Victim girl and the appellant went to the police station where the statement of PW1 was recorded. Thereafter, the police obtained Date of Birth certificate of PW1 and on the basis of her statement, the section of law was altered and Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code were added. After completion of investigation, having found that PW1 was a minor, the police filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 363, 366 A, 376 (2) (n), 506, 496 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. The appellant was charged for the said offences and after conclusion of trial the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for the offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment, under section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment, under Section 506 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years of Rigorous Imprisonment; and under Section 496 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that infact PW1 was not a child but a major on the date of alleged offence. As seen from the evidence she had accompanied the appellant on her own volition. When she went along with the appellant on her own volition, the question of using force by the appellant does not arise and further Ex.P3 and P4 produced by the prosecution to substantiate their claim that PW1 was 18 years, both appear to be fabricated and it cannot be relied upon to conclude that PW1 was below 18 years.

5. He relied upon the Judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2010 SCC OnLine MP 497] and drew the attention of the court to para-7 which reads as follows :

“7. According to Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, 1988 Supp SCC 604 Apex Court held that the entries in scholar’s register and secondary school examination records have no evidentiary value to prove age of a candidate in absence of evidence of any person on whose information the date of birth had been entered in the school records. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar’s register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. In the present case, though the parents have been examined, but no evidence regarding the basis of date of birth was given by them and original admission form has not been called, so the learned CJM has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a minor.”

6. The counsel also relied upon the Judgment of Madras High Court in Sabari v. Inspector of Police and others, [2019 (3) MLJ (Criminal) 110] wherein on facts and circumstances, when the victim herself turned hostile to the case of prosecution, the Court acquitted the appellant from the charges of kidnapping and committing sexual assault.

7. Further, the counsel for appellant relied upon the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2012) 9 Supreme Court