JUDGMENT

DICTATED IN OPEN COURT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal

Heard on I.A.No.6788/2026, which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the aforesaid application.

I.A.No.6788/2026 is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is finally heard.

This appeal is filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 14.10.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) Singrauli in Special Case No.23/2024 convicting the appellant Munnaram for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C") and Section 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act") and sentencing him under Section 366 of the I.P.C and Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and twenty years with fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year and one year respectively with a further direction to run all the jail sentences concurrently.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is one of consensual relations between two adults. Referring to the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1), it is submitted that, in Paragraph No.6, the prosecutrix admits that she herself had called the appellant. She further states that at the time of her admission to Class-I, she was seven years old. She also admits that since her father had beaten her, she had left her house on her own. Referring to Exhibit P/3, namely, her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, the prosecutrix (PW-1) states that she had gone to Banaras alongwith the appellant because her father had beaten her. She was already acquainted with the appellant, who had given her a ring, and thereafter, at Banaras, they performed a marriage ceremony. Subsequently, they established a marital relationship and lived as husband and wife. It is submitted that the mere positivity of the DNA report, arising from a relationship between two consenting adults, is not by itself sufficient to record a finding of conviction. Referring to the testimonies of the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2), the father of the prosecutrix (PW-3), Dr. Sarita Shah (PW-5), and the School Teacher (PW-8), it is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix. Therefore, it is contended that the appellant deserves to be acquitted and that the finding of conviction is liable to be set aside.

Learned Government Advocate for the State, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the DNA report is positive. The Class-X marksheet of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is available on record as Exhibit P/5C in which her date of birth is recorded as 27.12.2007. The incident took place in April 2024 and thus, she was approximately sixteen and a half years old at the time of the incident. It is, therefore, submitted that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident. Hence, prayer is made for dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant and for affirmation of the impugned judgment.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

The prosecutrix (PW-1) states that she was admitted to Class-I at the age of seven years.

Contrary to this, the father of prosecutrix (PW-3) states that he had admitted the prosecutrix (PW-1) to L.K.G. on 31.07.2014. He further states that he has studied up to Class XII. However, no admission record, marksheet, or other document pertaining to L.K.G. or Class I has been brought on record.

The father of the prosecutrix (PW-3) also admits that his marriage was solemnized nineteen years prior to the date of the incident and that his first child was born one year after the marriage.

The prosecutrix (PW-1) states that she took admission in Class-1 at the age of seven years.

The mother of the