When a medical board provides an age range and the victim's testimony supports the upper limit, the court should adopt the upper age limit to establish majority, particularly if other evidence like school records is unreliable.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH KUMAR, J.

By Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. representing the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 04.02.2019 passed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 16 of 2018 arising out of Pakartand P.S. Case No. 05 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 140 of 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum – Special Judge (POCSO Act), Simdega, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC and Sections 4, 8, 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 but he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of R.I. for 3 months under Section 4 of the POCSO Act; R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of R.I. for 3 months under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of R.I. for 3 months under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

3. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging written report being Pakartand P.S. Case No. 05 of 2018 by the informant namely Jorge Dungdung before the Officer-In-charge, Pakartand Police Station on 10.03.2018.

The brief story as per the prosecution is that the informant has shown apprehension that his victim- daughter, aged about 16 years, might have been taken from Simdega to Bangalore after enticing her by the accused Sonu Thakur.

4. Apart from it, earlier also a written application was filed by the informant before the C.W.C, Simdega with regard to the same allegation and the written application was forwarded by the Chairman, CWC, Simdega on 23.02.2018 to the learned Principal Magistrate, J.J. Board, Simdega who sent it to the Officer-in-charge Pakartanr, Police Station through the S.P., Simdega for registration of a case. Thereafter S.P., Simdega directed the officer-in-charge Pakartanr Police Station to institute a case and on the basis of written application of the informant on 10.03.2018, as above, Pakartanr P.S. Case No. 05 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366-A of the IPC, Section 8(3) (4) of the J.J. Act was instituted against the accused and in course of investigation Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4,8 and 12 of the POCSO Act were added.

5. On the basis of the investigation, the Police has submitted the chargesheet under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of the IPC and Sections 4,8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. After taking cognizance by this Court, the case was proceeded for trial.

6. After appearance of the accused, the charge under Sections 363, 376 of the IPC and Section 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was framed, which was explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether nine prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are as follows:

I. P.W.1(Jorge Dungdung) – He is the informant and father of the victim. He has supported the prosecution story. As per him the age of the victim is about 16-17 years.

II. P.W.2(Hileria Dungdung) – She is the mother of the victim. She has also supported the prosecution story. As per her, the age of her daughter is about 15-16 years.

III. P.W.3(Victim) – She has supported the prosecution case. She has stated that her date of birth is January 2000 and as such on completing 18 years of age, she had gone with the accused on her own will as she has love r