Statements under Section 164 of CrPC are not substantive evidence; DNA reports require strict adherence to procedural safeguards to be admissible.

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

1. Since these three criminal appeals, under Section 374(2) of CrPC, have arisen out of the same impugned judgment and the question of law and facts also being similar in these appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In these criminal appeals, the judgment dated 07/11/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, in POCSO Case No.08/2019 has been challenged by which the three Appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as under:

Appellants Conviction Sentence

(All the sentences are directed to run concurrently)

3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Dineshwari Yadav (PW-2) made a written complaint on 14/02/2019 at Narayanpur Police Station alleging that the victim who was below 18 years of age, had told her that her friend Anjali had introduced her to accused Ram Singh Salam at Narayanpur bus stand. Thereafter, Ram Singh used to come to her village Kaushalnar on the pretext that he likes her and will marry her. Appellant Ramsingh used to take her towards village Rakasnala and forcefully had physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage, due to which, she became pregnant. When she told appellant Ram Singh about her pregnancy, he took her to Bhanupratappur and got her abortion done in a private nursing home. On the basis of the written complaint, an unnumbered FIR was registered against accused Ramsingh Salam at Narayanpur Police Station vide Ex.P-8. Later on, numbered FIR was registered at Jharaghati Police Station for offence under sections 493 and 376 of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.

4. During investigation, Vijan Kumar Mandal, who performed the abortion, was taken into custody and upon interrogation, he confessed the crime. Hence, he was charged for offence under sections 312 and 313 of the IPC and section 5 (2) (3) (4) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971. The victim's aunt Mankumari Yadav, was also charged for offence under section 201 of the IPC for not reporting the sexual harassment of the victim despite knowing about it.

5. The statement of prosecutrix under section 164 of CrPC was recorded vide Ex.P-5. The blood sample of the victim and the sample of the dead fetus were collected on 25.04.2019 and the blood sample of appellant Ramsingh was collected on 26.04.2019. The said samples were sent by the Superintendent of Police, District-Narayanpur vide Ex.P-30 on 27/04/2019 to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (DNA Unit), Raipur for DNA testing, which were received on 30.04.2019. As per the DNA test report Ex.P-31, it has been opined that appellant Ramsingh and the victim are biological father and mother of the dead fetus. After completion of investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

6. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents. The statements of the appellants /accused were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the ci