Insufficient evidence of victim's age undermined the conviction for sexual offences and established grounds for acquittal.

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Anuradha Jain, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board

15/07/2025

1. This Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated 09.09.2020, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa in Special Criminal Case No.01/2020, by which the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.10.2019, at about 1 pm, the victim, aged about 16 years old, told her mother- GB (PW-3) that she is going alone to her maternal uncle’s village at Ranixxxx on her bicycle. Thereafter, in the evening, at about 6 pm, on the same day i.e. 19.10.2019, after parking her bicycle near the mobile shop, she went somewhere else. Later on, her mother got the information that the appellant/accused had enticed the minor prosecutrix and taken her along with him. Subsequently, a named FIR was lodged by the mother on 22.10.2019 vide Ex-P/4. Thereafter, the victim was recovered on 18.11.2019 vide Ex-P/5 and she disclosed that the appellant/accused on the pretext of marriage, took her and committed rape with her near a canal. Thereafter, the appellant dropped her at Railway Station Baradwar, from where, she went to her sister’s (PW-2) village at Korba. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex-P/2. After obtaining the consent of the victim and parents vide Ex-P/1, the victim was subject to medical examination vide Ex-P/12 by Dr. Kiran Binjwar (PW-8), who opined that the hymen was ruptured, however, she didn’t give any information of recent sexual intercourse. The appellant was also medically examined vide Ex-P/13 and he was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The School Admission Register (Ex-P/10) was seized from the Headmaster (PW-4), wherein, the date of birth of the victim was recorded as 16.08.2003. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

3. During the course of trial, the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents vide Ex-P/1 to Ex- P/19. The appellant/accused, in his statements recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case, however, he did not adduce any defence evidence.

4. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, the present Appeal has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the age of the victim has not been proved to be less than 18 years on the date of offence. He would further submit that the victim is a consenting party, therefore, the conviction recorded by the trial Court is erroneous and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. Thus, the Appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the State would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offences beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences; therefore, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, co