The prosecution must establish the identity and age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt in sexual offense cases, particularly involving minors, and the evidentiary value of DNA reports is contingent on proper handling and cross-examination.

JUDGMENT

This is the Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for short) against the judgment and order dated 20.5.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nagpur in Special Case No.70/2017 convicting and sentencing the Appellant as follows:-

a) For the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as “I.P.C.” for short) and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to pay fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months;

b) For the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth referred to as “POCSO Act” for short) and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to pay fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months;

c) For the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to pay fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

2. The prosecution’s case, as revealed from the police report, is as under:-

The informant was residing with his family, comprising wife and 2 minor daughters. The victim was the eldest daughter of the informant. The victim was 12 years old and a ‘special child’. The informant used to leave home at 10.30 a.m. The informant noticed that, from last some days, the victim was not present at home in the afternoon and she returns home in the evening with one boy on the motorcycle who drops her near the house. One week prior to lodging the report, the victim was not at home for considerable time and she returned home around 4.30 p.m. He enquired with the victim and she told that, she had accompanied the Appellant on his motorcycle, who took her to one room, where the Appellant removed her clothes. On 12.1.2017, it was noticed that the Appellant was seen repeatedly roaming around his house on the motorcycle. The registration number of the motorcycle was taken down by the neighbourer. On 13.1.2017 the victim left home at 1.30 p.m. and returned at 4.50 p.m. On enquiry, the victim told that, the Appellant took her to one room and he raped her. The informant lodged the report with the Imamwada Police Station against the Appellant and crime bearing No.0009/2017 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(l), 376(2) (n), 354 and 363 of the I.P.C. and Sections 4 , 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

The Investigating Officer referred the victim for medical examination. Statement of the victim was recorded. The statement of witnesses were recorded. The Appellant came to be arrested. The clothes of the victim and that of the Appellant came to be seized. The blood samples of the victim and that of the Appellant came to be drawn. The seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyst. The relevant documents were collected. On completion of investigation, the Appellant came to be chargesheeted. On committal, learned trial Court framed the Charge against the Appellant below Exh.48 for the offence punishable under Sections 363 , 354, 376(2)(i), (j), (l) and (n) of the I.P.C. and Sections 4 , 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The Appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined following 10 witnesses.

1) The victim as P.W.1,

2) Father of victim who is also the informant as P.W.2,

3) The Medical Officer who examined th