The court considers the credibility of witness statements and the evaluation of evidence concerning minor status in sexual offense cases.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

14 09-01-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. Records have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of the sentence and release on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 14.06.2024 in connection with POCSO Case No. 14 of 2022, arising out of Mohania P.S. Case No. 27 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 366 , 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and by order dated 19.06.2024 he has been sentenced to undergo R.I for 20 Years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.I. for one year. For the sake of brevity, the punishment awarded under other sections are not mentioned.

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution case is based on the written application submitted by the father of the victim girl on 24.01.2021 in Mohania Police Station in which he alleged that his daughter (X aged about 15 years) had gone to visit fair on 15.01.2021 at 03:00 P.M whereafter her friend returned but she had not returned. He alleged that some unknown boy had allured and taken away his daughter on the pretext of marrying her.

5. It is submitted that it is evident from the written report that it was submitted after about nine days from the date on which the daughter of the informant went missing. 6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim. It is submitted that in her 164 Cr.P.C statement the victim girl has categorically stated that her age was 19 years and she was making her statement before the learned Magistrate without any pressure. She had left her home and had gone with this appellant to Hyderabad where she had married with the appellant. She has stated that the appellant had never allured her. She had returned her home with the appellant and during this period she had married the appellant in January 2021. She expressed her desire to go with her husband. 164 Cr.P.C statement (exhibit D-1/P.W.-4) has been placed before this Court. It is submitted that the 164 Cr.P.C statement was recorded on 04.09.2021 but during trial when the victim came to depose after about two years, she took a complete U-turn and made a statement that the appellant had allured her and taken her to Mumbai where he had committed wrong acts with her. She had stayed with the appellant for nine months and she had given birth to a male child. It is submitted that the victim made a completely contradictory statement under parental pressure.

7. Learned senior counsel submits that even during her cross-examination the defence questioned her age and suggested that she was major. The learned trial court has, however, relied upon the deposition of P.W.-5 who was the In- charge Head Master of the Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, Dadar and came with the admission register only at a belated stage in course of trial. This school admission register was of class -2, therefore, it was not of the school first attended by the victim. Moreover, this document did not form part of the charge sheet. It is submitted that P.W.-5 has admitted that the age of the victim was recorded in the school register on the basis of a declaration but there is no circular/direction to record the age of the student on the basis of mere declaration.

8. On record, there is an affidavit of the victim. The victim has stated in her affidavit that she had married the appellant in a love affair and has given birth to a son namely Ashvir aged about three years from the wedlock with the appellant and she is still pregnant of