The prosecution failed to prove the victim's minority, establishing the appellant's consent, hence the acquittal.

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ Judgment on Board (11/06/2025)

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J This Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused/appellants under

1.

Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.1.2016 passed by the Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date:

2025.06.13 +0530 Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), District Bilaspur in Special ST No.428/2014 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that (PW-2) victim, aged about

2.

16 years girl, lodged a written complaint (Ex.-P/1) at Police Station Seepat on 5.10.2014 stating that the appellant, who is a teacher, has been alluring her for the last one year and on the pretext of marriage sexually exploited her. When the victim asked him for the marriage, he refused for the same and threatened to beat and also allured of Rs.20,000/- for leaving the village. Based on such information, FIR No.242/2014 (Ex.-P/2) was registered.

Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.-P/3. Spot map was

3.

prepared vide Ex.-P/4. After obtaining consent of the victim (Ex.- P/5), she was medically examined by Dr. Sheela Saha (PW-9), but she has not given any definite opinion about recent sexual intercourse. The accused/appellant was also medically examined by Dr. Rajendra Singh Maravi (PW-7) and he opined that the accused/ appellant is capable for perform sexual intercourse vide Ex.-P/15. School register (Ex.-P/20), wherein the date of birth of the victim was recorded as 4.11.1998, was seized vide Ex.-P/7 from headmaster of the school (PW-11) Baldau Prasasd.

Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the

4.

investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as

5.

many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The accused/ appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC has stated that he has been falsely implicated. However, he has not adduced any defence witness.

The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary

6.

evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, however, in view of the provisions contained under Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the appellant was sentenced only under Section 6 of the POCSO Act since offence under the said Act is more graver, against which this Appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the age of the

7.

victim has not been proved to be less than 18 years on the date of the incident. According to the Ossification test report (Ex.-P/18), age of the victim on the date of examination i.e. 9.10.2014, has been opined to be the age group of 19 years or above. The alleged offence took place one year prior to the year of examination and, therefore, the victim has crossed the age of 18 years on the date of the incident and she became major. He would further submit that the headmaster of the school (PW-11) has categorically admitted the fact that on what basis the date of birth of the victim has been recorded in the school register, he was not aware and the said entry was not made by him. From the statement of the victim (PW-2), it is explicit that she wa