The prosecution must prove the victim's age and the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in sexual offence cases; doubts regarding these elements can lead to acquittal.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is by the accused, challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, whereby the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC , and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 11 years.

2. The prosecution’s case is as follows:

The accused, knowing that CW5, the victim girl, was a minor, on 1.5.2018 at 11:30 p.m., when the victim girl had come to his house for preparations for his elder sister’s marriage and slept in the bedroom, entered the room where CW5 was sleeping. He touched her head and breasts, called her, and awakened her. When the victim girl started to inquire, the accused closed her mouth with his hand, lifted her, and took her to the kitchen room. There, he laid her on the ground, removed his pants, and forcibly removed her clothes. Despite the victim girl informing him that she was still studying in the 8th standard, and that he was her brother by relation, and refusing physical contact, the accused threatened her and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her.

Subsequently, from 1.5.2018 to 8.5.2018, the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with CW5 eight times. After this, the victim girl missed her periods for two months and informed her parents about the incident. Upon learning that her parents intended to lodge a complaint, the accused, on 21.07.2018 at 1:30 p.m., when CW5 was alone in her house, visited her and persuaded her by promising to marry her. He gave her tablets, which caused her to have her periods. The accused then committed forcible sexual intercourse with CW5 again and threatened her, stating that if she informed anyone about the incident, he would kill her. Through these actions, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4 , 6, 8, 10, and 12 of the POCSO Act.

3. To establish its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses (PW1 to PW21) and submitted documents as Exhibits P1 to P38. The material objects were marked as MO1 to MO7. The accused examined three witnesses (DW1 to DW3). After framing the points for consideration and evaluating the evidence on record, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that, as of the date of the incident, there is no substantive evidence to establish that the survivor (PW2) was a minor, and therefore, the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under the POCSO Act lacks legal basis. He further argued that there is animosity between the complainant and the family members of the accused, and therefore, the prosecution’s case that the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with the complainant at his house during the marriage ceremony is baseless and lacks credibility. The alleged incident took place between 1.5.2018 and 11.05.2018, and the FIR was lodged on 23.07.2018, after a lapse of more than two months, without any plausible explanation. In support he places reliance on following decisions:

a) P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, [2023 SCC Online SC 846]

b) State of Karnataka Vs. Kandappa S/o Vishnu Vaddar, Crl.A.No.100520/2021, 27th June, 2024.

5. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State submitted that the evidence of the survivor (PW2) clearly establishes that the appellant/accused committed forcible sexual intercourse, and nothing was elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve her statement. The evidence of PW2, along with the medical records, clearly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court, after considering the material evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.

6. After conside