The court held that school register entries, without supporting credible documentation or verification, are insufficient to determine the age of a victim in criminal trials; further, a conviction must rely on victim testimony that inspires confidence and proves charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ

1. Since the aforesaid two criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge (F.T.S.C.) POCSO Act, Mungeli, District Mungeli in M.CR.C. No.40/2021, they were clubbed and heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Appellant-Raju Kumar Anand has filed Criminal Appeal No.1252/2023 against the impugned judgment dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge (F.T.S.C.) POCSO Act, Mungeli, District Mungeli in M.CR.C. No.40/2021, whereby the trial Court has convicted him for offence under Sections 363, 366A and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter called as ‘POCSO Act’) and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month, RI for five years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month and RI for twenty years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month.

3. Appellant-Shyam Sundar @ Tillu Anand has filed Criminal Appeal No.1169/2023 against the impugned judgment dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge (F.T.S.C.) POCSO Act, Mungeli, District Mungeli in M.CR.C. No.40/2021, whereby the trial Court has convicted him for offence under Section 363/109 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month.

4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.07.2021 father of the victim (PW-4) lodged a missing report at Police Station City Kotwali Mungeli, District Mungeli stating that his daughter was missing from 9:30 A.M. on 21.07.2021 where she had left home for buying a notebook at nearby shop. He apprehended that appellant Raju Kumar Anand with the help of his family members has abduced the minor victim on verge of marrying her. On the said report, an FIR was registered under Section 363 of the IPC vide Ex.P-10 and investigation was started.

5. On investigation, the victim was recovered from the possession of appellant Raj Kumar Anand on 23.07.2021 vide Ex.P-5. Upon recovery of the minor victim, her medical examination was conducted vide Ex.P-9 in which no injury was found and hymen was ruptured. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate was recorded vide Ex.P-7. Spot map was prepared by the patwari vide Ex.P-8. The statements of the victim as well as other witnesses were recorded. The present appellant along with other co-accused persons were arrested and Sections 366, 376/34 of the IPC and Section 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act were added, seizures were made, arrest memos were prepared. Dakhil kharij register was seized vide Ex.P-2. Certified copy of the dakhil kharij registered was Ex.P-3(c) in which the date of the victim has been mentioned as 02.07.2007. After following necessary procedures and upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was presented before the learned jurisdictional criminal Court.

6. On the basis of material available on record, charges were framed against appellants. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence.

7. In order to establish the charge against the appellants, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the CrPC were also recorded in which