The Court emphasized the importance of accurate age determination and the presumption of innocence, ruling that inconsistent testimonies did not support a finding of guilt under the POCSO Act.

1. Appellant challenges his conviction under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 363 , 366, 376 IPC and consequent order on sentence.

2. Since matter pertains to a sexual assault committed, allegedly, upon a minor girl, such victim would be referred to as ‘Miss A’ in the present judgment.

3. Let us take note of the relevant facts.

4. On 21.06.2014, father of ‘Miss A’ reported to the police that his daughter, aged 14 years, was missing. He also suspected that she (Miss A) had been enticed away by accused Raju (appellant herein).

5. FIR for commission of offence under Section 363 IPC was registered and investigation was initiated.

6. Initially, there was no clue about either of them.

7. Eventually, on 06.07.2014, PW11 Kamal Singh (father of accused Raju) produced his son Raju as well as ‘Miss A’ before the police.

8. Statement of ‘Miss A’ was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she was got medically examined. She was also produced before Child Welfare Committee (CWC) which directed her custody to be handed over to her parents. Since there was not enough of clarity with respect to her exact age, pursuant to further directions given by CWC, her bone age ossification test was got carried out which indicated her age to be between 17 to 18 years.

9. After completion of necessary investigation, chargesheet was filed before the concerned Court.

10. Accused was charged for commission of offences under Section 363 , 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

11. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses in order to substantiate said charges.

12. Accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded innocence and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the matter.

13. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

14. Learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that at the time of alleged occurrence of offence, i.e. on 20.06.2014, ‘Miss A’ was minor and that she had been taken away forcibly by the accused from the custody of her parents with the intention of subjecting her to illicit intercourse and forcible marriage. It also held that she had been taken to one village situated in Amritsar, Punjab where she was sexually assaulted. Observing that prosecution had been able to bring home the charges against the accused, he was sentenced as under: -

Offence

Substantive Sentence

Fine

In-default Sentence

Section 4 POCSO Act

RI for Life

Rs.20,000/-

2 months SI

Section 363 IPC

7 years

Rs.10,000/-

1 month SI

Section 366 IPC

10 years

Rs.10,000/-

1 month SI

15. Since the convict had been sentenced for commission of offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act, no separate sentence under Section 376 IPC was awarded in view of bar contained under Section 4 2 of POCSO Act and Section 71 of IPC.

16. All the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also extended to accused.

17. As regards compensation, learned Trial Court directed the concerned District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to make provision of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards restorative and compensatory justice to ‘Miss A’ with direction to reimburse the same, with one month.

18. In the present appeal, the challenge is to order dated 04.07.2020 (order on conviction) and order dated 25.07.2020 (order on sentence).

19. Sh. Anwesh Madhukar, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant has submitted that certain vital aspects have been overlooked by the learned Trial Court and, therefore, the impugned or