JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 496 of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 vide judgment in Special Sessions Case No.57 of 2017, dated 16.02.2021 passed by the Special Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that victim/P.W.1 was student in Froebels Model School, Ghanpur. Appellant was physics teacher. According to the evidence of P.W.1, she was moving closely with him. On 29.04.2016, P.W.1 went to meet the appellant. The appellant took P.W.1 to the house of A2 and A3 where they stayed in the night and the appellant proposed to P.W.1. They stayed for another three days. On 03.05.2016, the appellant took A2 and P.W.1 on the bike to Ashravelli to the house of maternal aunt of A2, where they stayed for six days. On 09.05.2016, the appellant took P.W.1, A2 and A3 to the house of A2 at Medipalli village. From there, appellant, A2 and A3 and P.W.1 went to Narsampet in an auto. At Narsampet, they purchased clothes for marriage and went to temple at Kothagudem. When the priest refused to perform marriage at Kothagudem, all of them went to Kattamaisamma temple where A4 was the priest. A4 performed the marriage of the appellant and P.W.1. After marriage, they went to Swapna Lodge at Ellandu of Khammam District. The appellant and P.W.1 stayed in one room while the A2 and A3 stayed in other room. On the night, it is alleged that the appellant had sex forcibly. They continued to stay in the room for seven or eight days and during that period also, the appellant had sex with PW1. After eight days, the appellant informed that he did not have money to continue to stay in the lodge and went out to sell his laptop. Meanwhile, the police came and took P.W.1 and A2 to the police station.

3. PW.1 went missing on 29.04.2016, for which reason, her father-P.W.2 filed complaint Ex.P1 on 30.04.2016, stating that his daughter P.W.1 might have eloped with the appellant and requested to take necessary action. FIR was registered for the offence 363 of IPC. PW.1 was traced on 17.05.2016. On the basis of the statement given by P.W.1, penal sections were added as stated supra.

4. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges against A1 to A4. Having examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 23 and marking Exs.P1 to P19 on behalf of the prosecution, learned Sessions Judge having believed the version of P.W.1 convicted the appellant-A1. However, A2 to A4 were extended benefit of doubt since there was nothing on record to suggest that A2 and A3 have abetted A1 to marry P.W.1. Likewise, A4 was not informed that P.W.1 was a minor.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is no evidence regarding the age of P.W.1. Ex.P11 is the date of birth certificate given by the Froebel Model High School. The said certificate cannot be made basis to conclusively say that the date in the said certificate is the correct date. Further, the counsel argued that as seen from the narration of events, P.W.1 was a consenting party to whatever that transpired in between P.W.1 and the appellant. He relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mekala Shiva v. State of Telangana 2022(2) ALD (Crl.) 462 (TS). In the said judgment, on the basis of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, (1982) 2 SCC 538 it was held that judicial notice and margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination was two years on either side. Further, the bonafide certificate cannot be conclusive proof regarding the age unless hospital or municipal certificate is produced.

6. Counsel relied on the judgment of Madan Mohan Singh and others v. Rajni Kant and another, (201