The prosecution failed to establish the victim's status as a minor, thus precluding conviction under the POCSO Act and related IPC sections due to insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.)

1 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 26.12.2017 passed in Sessions Case PCS No.18 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Hyderabad wherein and whereby the appellant herein was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 6 of the POCSO Act, 376 (2) (n), 363 and 365 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - for the offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - each for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 365 of IPC.

2 The facts in brief that lead to the filing of the present criminal appeal are that on 26.12.2014 P.W.1 lodged a complaint stating that her grand daughter P.W.5 was found missing. Basing on the said complaint a case in Cr.No.518 of 2014 under Sections 3 63 and 365 of IPC was registered by P.W.10-ASI of Police and later on P.W.11 took up further investigation in this case. During the course of investigation on 07.01.2015 the missing girl P.W.5 was traced and was brought to P.S. On examination P.W.5 stated that on 09.3.2012 she came into contact with one G.Vijay Kumar (the appellant herein) through Facebook and they both fell in love with each other. On 09.3.2012 at about 11.00 am they got married at Peddamma temple, Banjara Hills and they took photographs also. The appellant used to come and meet her at her college. On 26.12.2014 at about 7.00 am, the appellant took her to Secunderabad and from there to Vijayawada. They went to Durga temple, later had lunch and from there the appellant took her to Visakhapatnam and kept her in his friend’s room and went away and since then she was in Visakhapatnam. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 was also got recorded by the XI ACMM, Secunderabad. Basing on the statement of P.W.5, P.W.14-Inspector of Police added the Section 3 76 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and took further investigation during which the victim was sent to Gandhi Hospital for medical examination where P.W.8 examined the victim and preserved the virginal smears. According to the school records, the victim was determined 17 years being the date of birth as 14.8.1997. Hence the charge.

3 Cognizance was taken under Sections 3 63, 365 and 376 of IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Charges under Sections 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 3 63, 365 and 376 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked EXs.P.1 to P.11. The appellant was examined under Section 3 13 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence available against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses which he denied.

4 The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and on hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 6 of the POCSO Act, 376 (2) (n), 363 and 365 of IPC and was sentenced as stated supra. Aggrieved, the present appeal by the accused.

5 Heard Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M.Srinivsa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State and perused the record.

6 Now the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt or not? And whether the conviction and sentences recorded by the learned trial Cour