Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 356 (HP)

RAJINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2019-04-02

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Appellant herein is a convict. Learned Special Judge, Bilaspur has convicted him under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act" in short) vide impugned judgment dated 15.3.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 22/7 of 2015 and sentenced as under : Under Section 376(2) of IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment of six months. Under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment of six months. 2. The Himachal Pradesh Voluntary Health Association (Child Line) Shimla, allegedly supported by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Govt. of India, New Delhi and Child Line India Foundation, Mumbai, has put the machinery into motion in the case in hand. PW-26 Minakshi Kanwar, Coordinator, Child Line Shimla has made an application Ext. PW-26/A on 7.6.2014 to the Station House Officer, PS Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur to the effect that as per call received over telephone at Child Line No. 1098 on 5.6.2014, a girl aged 14 years is pregnant and not going to school. She requested the police to look into the matter and intervene. On the basis of the application Ext. PW-26/A, rapat (Ext. PW-21/A) No. 41(A) dated 7.6.2014 was entered in the Police Station Ghumarwin. Another rapat (Ext. PW-21/B) No. 47(A) was entered in the Police Station on the same day, which reveals that ASI Duni Chand accompanied by LHC Anita and HC Raj Kumar went to the house of the prosecutrix where her mother and grandmother met them. They disclosed that the prosecutrix was not in the house having gone to the house of someone in her relations. They ensured to produce her in the Police Station on the next day. On this, police party returned to Police Station as the prosecutrix was not found in the house during the search they conducted there. The information was given to Station House Officer and also SDPO Ghumarwin, accordingly. 3. On the next day, i.e. 8.6.2014, PW-2 Meeran Devi, mother of the prosecutrix accompanied by prosecutrix went to Police Station Ghumarwin. At her instance, FIR Ext. PW-14/A came to be recorded. The information was given to Station House Officer and also SDPO Ghumarwin, accordingly. 3. On the next day, i.e. 8.6.2014, PW-2 Meeran Devi, mother of the prosecutrix accompanied by prosecutrix went to Police Station Ghumarwin. At her instance, FIR Ext. PW-14/A came to be recorded. She reported to the police that her husband had already expired about 10-12 years ago. She had three issues born to her from the lions of her deceased husband. After the birth of the elder son, the prosecutrix and another son (twins) have born to her. At the time of incident, the prosecutrix was studying in 10th class. About 15 days ago, she felt pain in her stomach. Her mother-in-law Bimla Devi had taken the prosecutrix to Government Hospital at Ghumarwin. When the ultra sound was got conducted privately, it transpired that she was pregnant. On enquiry about the same from the prosecutrix, she revealed that about 5-6 months ago, on her way to school, a boy had forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse. That boy was not known to her. She allegedly did not disclose anything about it in the home to anyone being afraid of their wrath. It was also reported by PW-2 Meeran Devi that since she was ill, therefore, she could not visit the police station immediately. 4. After registration of the FIR, PW-16 ASI Sita Ram, Investigating Officer moved application Ext. PW-9/A to the Medical Officer for conducting medical examination of the prosecutrix. MLC Ext. PW-9/B was collected and the opinion Ext. PW-9/E of the doctor also obtained. The prosecutrix had delivered a male dead child on 9.6.2014 in Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur. An application Ext. PW-9/F was made by the I.O. for obtaining medical opinion qua the age of foetus. The opinion Ext. PW-9/G was also obtained. The blood sample of the prosecutrix and baby were taken for chemical examination. On 11.6.2014, the extract of birth and death register Ext. PW-3/A and the birth certificate Ext. PW-3/B was obtained from PW-3 Ravinder Kumar, Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kothi, Tehsil Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur. Her date of birth was found recorded as 24.6.1998. The date of birth certificate Ext. PW-11/E was also supplied by PW-11 Kiran Lata, Headmaster Govt. Primary School, Glassin, Distt. Bilaspur along with the extract of admission and withdrawal register Ext. PW-11/B and the application submitted for admission is Ext. PW-11/C. The documents Ext. Bilaspur. Her date of birth was found recorded as 24.6.1998. The date of birth certificate Ext. PW-11/E was also supplied by PW-11 Kiran Lata, Headmaster Govt. Primary School, Glassin, Distt. Bilaspur along with the extract of admission and withdrawal register Ext. PW-11/B and the application submitted for admission is Ext. PW-11/C. The documents Ext. PW-11/B and PW11/E were also supplied by PW-11 Kiran Lata, Headmaster Govt. Primary School, Glassin, Distt. Bilaspur. In the school record also, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was found mentioned as 24.6.1998. On 17.6.2014, the accused was interrogated on suspicion. 5. Pw-17 SI Indu has recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 19.6.2014. According to her, about 5-6 months ago, while on the way to her school around 8:00 AM, one boy came from behind when she was at a place, namely, Chehar. He cought hold of her arm and took her inside the bushes. It was an isolated place. Though, she cried for help but there was none present nearby to help her. That boy removed her clothes (salwar) and subjected her to sexual intercourse forcibly. He, therefore, left the place of occurrence and she went to school. She did not disclose the incident to anyone in the school nor in the house. She was afraid of being scolded by her family members, had the incident been disclosed to them. When she felt pain in her stomach after few months, her grandmother had taken her to hospital. It is in the hospital, the doctor told that she was pregnant. It was also disclosed by the prosecutrix that said boy never met her thereafter nor he is known to her. She even was not in a position to identify his face also. 6. Application Ext. PW-25/A was made to Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur with a prayer to record the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Consequently, statement Ext. PW-1/B came to be recorded by learned ACJM, Ghumarwin (PW-25 Sh. Anil Sharma). The blood sample of accused was obtained on 19.6.2014 for DNA profiling. On analysing the same, the Asstt. Director DNA, FSL Junga has submitted the report that the prosecutrix is the biological mother of the still born baby whereas the accused biological father. On this, the investigation was taken in hand by PW-19 ASI Kewal Singh. Anil Sharma). The blood sample of accused was obtained on 19.6.2014 for DNA profiling. On analysing the same, the Asstt. Director DNA, FSL Junga has submitted the report that the prosecutrix is the biological mother of the still born baby whereas the accused biological father. On this, the investigation was taken in hand by PW-19 ASI Kewal Singh. He interrogated the accused further on 18.11.2014 and on finding the evidence qua his involvement in the commission of the offence, he was arrested. During further interrogation on 21.11.2015, the prosecutrix and her mother identified the room in their house where the accused allegedly subjected her to sexual intercourse thrice. The identification memo is Ext. PW-1/A. The medical examination of the accused was conducted by PW-8 Dr. Bikram Singh and found him capable of committing sexual intercourse. 7. It is on the completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the Court. Learned Special Judge, on appreciation of the challan and documents annexed therewith as well as finding prima-facie that the accused has repeatedly subjected the prosecutrix, a minor below 18 years of age to sexual intercourse, has framed charge against him under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Since the accused has not pleaded guilty to the charge and claimed trial, therefore, the prosecution has produced the evidence collected during the course of investigation. 8. The material prosecution witnesses are PW-1, the prosecutrix, her mother PW-2 Meeran Devi, PW-3 Ravinder Kumar, Secretary Gram Panchayat Kothi, PW-8 Dr. Bikram, PW-9 Dr. Isha Sharma, PW-10 Dr. Sumeet, PW-11 Kiran Lata, Headmaster, Govt. Primary School Glassin, District Bilaspur, PW-12 Piar Chand, Ward Member, Gram Panchayat Kothi, PW-15 Keshava Nand, the then Ward Member, Gram Panchayat Kothi at whose instance, the entries qua date of birth were made in the birth and death register. PW-20 Parwati though belongs to Reckong Peo, District Kinaur to which Manju Devi (PW-22, the wife of accused belongs), however, married in Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. PW-25 Anil Sharma, learned ACJM, Ghumarwin and PW-26 Minakshi Kanwar, Coordinator, Child Line, Shimla. The remaining prosecution witnesses are police officials/I.Os who remained associated during the investigation of the case in one way or the other. 9. PW-25 Anil Sharma, learned ACJM, Ghumarwin and PW-26 Minakshi Kanwar, Coordinator, Child Line, Shimla. The remaining prosecution witnesses are police officials/I.Os who remained associated during the investigation of the case in one way or the other. 9. On the other hand, accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that in relation, he is Uncle of the prosecutrix and also that he was got medically examined by the police, however, denied the remaining incriminating circumstances appearing against him in prosecution evidence being incorrect as according to him, he has been falsely implicated. 10. Learned trial Court, as noticed at the outset, has convicted and sentenced the accused for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376(2) IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 11. Aggrieved by the findings of conviction and sentence recorded against him, the accused has questioned the legality and validity thereof on the grounds inter alia that the evidence available on record has not been appreciated in its right perspective and to the contrary learned Special Judge has based the findings on conjectures and surmises. Without admitting and conceding to the prosecution case, it was pointed out that the prosecutrix had attained the age of discretion and as such competent to give consent for commission of sexual intercourse with her. It is also submitted that under Indian Law, incest is not a penal offence and only exception is the age of consent. The statement made by PW-3 Ravinder Kumar that the prosecutrix had filed a Civil Suit regarding correction of date of birth has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. The prosecutrix and also her mother, both have stated that the prosecutrix was born on 24.6.1996. While admitting that the prosecutrix and her brother born as twin, the mother also stated that due to illness and weakness, the prosecutrix started schooling at the age of 7 years, however, such evidence has also been ignored. The statement of the prosecutrix that the accused did not commit any wrong act with her is also not taken into consideration. The signatures of the accused on the documents were obtained under threat, hence stated to be violative of Sections 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and also Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The statement of the prosecutrix that the accused did not commit any wrong act with her is also not taken into consideration. The signatures of the accused on the documents were obtained under threat, hence stated to be violative of Sections 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and also Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The investigating agency has not made any effort to verify the factual position by associating the local residents, therefore, an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act has been sought to be drawn against the prosecution. The burden of proof that the accused has committed the offence was on the prosecution. The same has not been discharged and as such, the evidence on record not trustworthy should have not been relied upon. The appellant-convict, therefore, has prayed for quashing the impugned judgment and consequently his acquittal of the charges framed against him. 12. Sh. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate assisted by Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate, learned counsel representing the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecutrix and her mother have not at all supported the prosecution case while in the witness-box. According to Mr. Chitkara, no doubt, the prosecutrix at one point of time during her cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor has admitted that her statement Ext. PW-1/B under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is voluntary and she had signed the same after its contents read over and explained to her, however, when further cross-examined by learned defence counsel she has come forward with the version that no such statement was made by her before learned Magistrate. It has, therefore, been canvassed that the present is a case where the prosecutrix herself has caused major dent in the prosecution story. In view of her statement and the statement of her mother, two possible views have emerged and according to Mr. Chitkara, as per the settled legal principles, in a case of this nature, the view of the matter favourable to the accused has to be taken as compared to the one in favour of the prosecution. In order to buttress the arguments so addressed, Mr. Chitkara has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401 . In order to buttress the arguments so addressed, Mr. Chitkara has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401 . It is further canvassed that a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot have overriding effect on the statement recorded on oath by the Court. Therefore, when the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case, no findings of conviction could have been recorded on the basis of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW-1/B. It has also been alleged that even if sexual assault is believed to have been committed on the prosecutrix on and around 20.3.2014, the prosecutrix was 15 years 8 months and 26 days old, therefore, according to Mr. Chitkara, she has already attained the age of discretion and as such should have disclosed the sexual assault if committed by the accused to other family members. It has also been urged that the oral as well as documentary evidence is not sufficient to show her date of birth as 24.6.1998. She, according to Mr. Chitkara was rather born on 24.6.1996 and it is for this reason, a suit has been filed by her for correction of date of birth. The accused, therefore, has been sought to be acquitted of the charge. In the alternative, the sentence of life imprisonment is stated to be disproportionate to the offence committed as according to him, the prosecutrix was about 16 years of age at the time of occurrence, hence little short of 18 years, the age when in the given facts and circumstances she could have understood to be a consenting party to the alleged sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, in the alternative, the sentence, as such, has been sought to be reduced. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State has urged that the prosecution with the help of cogent and reliable evidence has succeeded to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being in near relation of the prosecutrix and a major person has subjected her to sexual intercourse repeatedly by taking undue advantage of her tender age and resultantly out of his physical relations with her, she became pregnant. As per the scientific investigation got conducted by the Investigating Agency while prosecutrix was biological mother of the foetus, the accused happens to be the biological father. No doubt, the prosecutrix, according to learned Addl. Advocate General has turned hostile to the prosecution, however, her testimony as a whole supports the prosecution case qua it is the accused who subjected her to sexual intercourse. The statement of the prosecutrix Ext. PW1/B under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the identification memo Ext. PW1/A has also been pressed into service in this regard. The appeal, as such, has been sought to be dismissed. 14. On analyzing the record of this case and also the evidence, comprising oral as well as documentary, the present is a case where the father of the prosecutrix has already expired. PW-2 Meeran Devi is her mother. PW-2 Meeran Devi has given birth to twins i.e. the prosecutrix female child and son, a male on 24.6.1998. The prosecutrix during the year 2013-14 was studying in 10th class. Admittedly, she stopped going to school on coming to know that she was pregnant. The Child Line Shimla received information in this regard and PW-26 Minakshi Kanwar, its Coordinator has sought intervention of the police in the matter by making application Ext. PW-26/A. As noticed supra, the police swung into action and took the prosecutrix to hospital for her medical examination on 8.6.2014. She was found pregnant and ultimately delivered a male baby, however, dead. As per Ext. PW-9/G, the opinion of the Medical Officer, the still born baby was more than 7 months, however, less than 8 months, meaning thereby that the prosecutrix had conceived the baby somewhere in November/December, 2013. 15. There is again no dispute so as to blood of the prosecutrix and still born baby was preserved for DNA profiling as is apparent from the MLC Ext. PW-9/C. The blood of the prosecutrix and baby and also the blood sample of the accused reveals that the same was found matching with each other. The opinion of the Medical Officer Ext. PW-9/E based upon the scientific investigation hereinabove reveals that the prosecutrix was the biological mother of the baby whereas the accused is biological father. The Medical Officer, on perusal of the report Ext. PW-9/D submitted by FSL has opined that the possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. The accused, as per the MLC Ext. PW-9/E based upon the scientific investigation hereinabove reveals that the prosecutrix was the biological mother of the baby whereas the accused is biological father. The Medical Officer, on perusal of the report Ext. PW-9/D submitted by FSL has opined that the possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. The accused, as per the MLC Ext. PW-8/B was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. 16. It is in this background, this Court has to determine firstly the age of the prosecutrix and secondly the person who assaulted the prosecutrix sexually is the accused or someone else. 17. As a matter of fact, in a case of this nature, it is the age of the prosecutrix which assumes considerable significance. Admittedly, the prosecutrix is one of the twins born to PW-2 Meeran Devi. The date of birth of the prosecutrix and her brother in the birth and death register is mentioned as 24.6.1998. The reference in this behalf can be made to the extract of Register Ext. PW-3/A and the certificate Ext. PW-3/B. Such date of birth of the prosecutrix and her brother has been entered in the birth and death register at the instance of PW-15 Keshava Nand, the then Ward Member, Gram Panchayat Kothi. PW-15 Keshava Nand when appeared in the witness-box has corroborated the prosecution case as according to him, the date of birth of the prosecutrix and her brother as 24.6.1998 was entered in the birth and death register at his instance. The entry qua date of birth in the birth and death register of the prosecutrix thus stands fully proved and we have no hesitation to place reliance on Ext. PW-3/A and Ext. PW-3/B being the primary evidence and admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. The another material piece of evidence is Ext. PW-11/P, the extract of Admission and Withdrawal Register maintained in Govt. Primary School Glassin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The application made by Balak Ram on 23.4.2003 Ext. PW-11/C for seeking admission of the prosecutrix in first standard also substantiates the prosecution case. The same was accompanied by the date of birth certificate Ext. PW-11/D issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kothi on 1.4.2003. The date of birth certificate Ext.PW-11/E issued by PW-11 Kiran Lata, Headmaster Govt. Primary School Glassin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur is based upon the old record i.e. entries in the Admission and Withdrawal Register. The same was accompanied by the date of birth certificate Ext. PW-11/D issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kothi on 1.4.2003. The date of birth certificate Ext.PW-11/E issued by PW-11 Kiran Lata, Headmaster Govt. Primary School Glassin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur is based upon the old record i.e. entries in the Admission and Withdrawal Register. The application supported by date of birth certificate supplied on 1.4.2003 by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat concerned for seeking her admission in first standard in that school was made by Balak Ram, none else but grandfather of the prosecutrix on 23.4.2003. The documentary evidence Ext. PW-11/C to PW-11/E is also primary evidence, hence, legally admissible. The prosecutrix, as such, is born on 24.6.1998. As observed hereinabove, she was sexually exploited somewhere in November/December, 2013. She, at that time was, therefore, 15 years, 7-8 months old, hence below 18 years of age. 18. No doubt, the defence has made an effort to prove otherwise that her correct date of birth is 24.6.1996, however, without producing in evidence the copy of complaint and the averments on the basis of the alleged suit for declaration that she was born on 24.6.1996 was filed. True it is that in a criminal case, the burden to prove its case lies upon the prosecution and the accused is not answerable to the evidence or any plea he raised in his defence, however, in the case in hand, the prosecution has satisfactorily pleaded and proved that the prosecutrix is born on 24.6.1998. Learned Special Judge, as such, has not committed any illegality or irregularity while arriving at a conclusion that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 24.6.1998 and she was minor, below 18 years of age at the time when sexually assaulted and became pregnant. 19. In a similar situation, in the case of Hemudan Banbha Gadhvi vs. The State of Gujarat, 2018 2 SCCOnline 1688, where the prosecutrix and the witnesses did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile, however, the close scrutiny of the evidence suggests that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused coupled with the fact that semen found on the clothes of the prosecutrix and that of the accused belong to group B. The same was found sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. This judgment reads as follows :- 8. This judgment reads as follows :- 8. The family of the prosecutrix was poor. She was one of the five siblings. The assault upon her took place while she had taken the buffalos for grazing. Her deposition was recorded nearly six months after the occurrence. We find no infirmity in the reasoning of the High Court that it was sufficient time and opportunity for the accused to win over the prosecutrix and PW1 by a settlement through coercion, intimidation, persuasion and undue influence. The mere fact that PW2 may have turned hostile, is not relevant and does not efface the evidence with regard to the sexual assault upon her and the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator. The observations with regard to hostile witnesses and the duty of the court in State vs. Sanjeev Nanda, (2012) 8 SCC 450 are also considered relevant in the present context: "101 ..if a witness becomes hostile to subvert the judicial process, the court shall not stand as a mute spectator and every effort should be made to bring home the truth. Criminal justice system cannot be overturned by those gullible witnesses who act under pressure, inducement or intimidation. Further, Section 193 IPC imposes punishment for giving false evidence but is seldom invoked." 9. A criminal trial is but a quest for truth. The nature of inquiry and evidence required will depend on the facts of each case. The presumption of innocence will have to be balanced with the rights of the victim, and above all the societal interest for preservation of the rule of law. Neither the accused nor the victim can be permitted to subvert a criminal trial by stating falsehood and resort to contrivances, so as to make it the theatre of the absurd. Dispensation of justice in a criminal trial is a serious matter and cannot be allowed to become a mockery by simply allowing prime prosecution witnesses to turn hostile as a ground for acquittal, as observed in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 and Mahila Vinod Kumari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 34 . If the medical evidence had not confirmed sexual assault on the prosecutrix, the T.I.P. and identification therein were doubtful, corroborative evidence was not available, entirely different considerations may have arisen. 10. If the medical evidence had not confirmed sexual assault on the prosecutrix, the T.I.P. and identification therein were doubtful, corroborative evidence was not available, entirely different considerations may have arisen. 10. It would indeed be a travesty of justice in the peculiar facts of the present case if the appellant were to be acquitted merely because the prosecutrix turned hostile and failed to identify the appellant in the dock, in view of the other overwhelming evidence available. In Iqbal vs. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 623 , it was observed as follows: "15. Evidence of identification of the miscreants in the test identification parade is not a substantive evidence. Conviction cannot be based solely on the identity of the dacoits by the witnesses in the test identification parade. The prosecution has to adduce substantive evidence by establishing incriminating evidence connecting the accused with the crime, like recovery of articles which are the subject matter of dacoity and the alleged weapons used in the commission of the offence." 11. The corroboration of the identification in T.I.P. is to be found in the medical report of the prosecutrix considered in conjunction with the semen found on the clothes of the prosecutrix and the appellant belonging to the Group B of the appellant. The vaginal smear and vaginal swab have also confirmed the presence of semen. A close analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the nature of the evidence available unequivocally establishes the appellant as the perpetrator of sexual assault on the prosecutrix. The serologist report was an expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and was therefore admissible in evidence without being marked an exhibit formally or having to be proved by oral evidence. 20. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal No. 620 of 2015 titled Krishan Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 16.3.2018, a similar case where the prosecutrix, her mother and grandmother did not fully support the prosecution case, however, during scientific investigation it surfaced that the semen on the clothes of the prosecutrix was that of the accused, has upheld the findings of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused and dismissed the appeal. 21. Now, if coming to the controversy that it is the accused who has subjected her to sexual intercourse, the prosecution has placed reliance on the identification memo Ext. 21. Now, if coming to the controversy that it is the accused who has subjected her to sexual intercourse, the prosecution has placed reliance on the identification memo Ext. PW1/A prepared at the instance of the prosecutrix, her statement Ext. PW-1/B under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also the report Ext. PW-9/D. As per Ext. PW-1/A, the prosecutrix and her mother identified the bed room in the upper floor of the house where she was subjected to sexual intercourse, most probably on 20.3.2014 by the accused. He, according to her subjected her to sexual intercourse twice during day time and once during night. She as per this document was, therefore, subjected to sexual intercourse thrice by the accused. While in the witness-box, she has admitted her signature encircled "A" on this document. Her mother PW-2 Meeran Devi, however, expressed her ignorance that the signature encircled red at point "B" is of her or not. Anyhow, Ext. PW-1/A stands proved because the prosecutrix has admitted her signature thereon and she has not been cross-examined qua this aspect of the matter, therefore, as per this document it is the accused who subjected her to sexual intercourse thrice. 22. Now, if coming to Ext. PW-1/B, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in her cross-examination conducted by learned Public Prosecutor, she has admitted the said statement having been made in the Court without any fear etc. Not only this, but she has also admitted that the contents thereof were read over and explained to her and it is after acknowledging the same, she appended her signature on it. She has also admitted her signature on Ext. PW-1/B encircled red at point "A". No doubt, in her examination-in-chief, the version of the prosecutrix is that the accused, her real Uncle in relation has not committed wrong act with her. In her cross-examination conducted by learned defence counsel also, she has denied that the statement Ext. PW-1/B has been made by her in the Court. She has denied portion 'A' to 'A' and 'B' to 'B' thereof as incorrect. She has rather admitted that at the time of recording her statement in the Court, she stated that accused had not committed sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, she has blown hot and cold in the same breath. However, her admission during her cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor that the statement Ext. She has rather admitted that at the time of recording her statement in the Court, she stated that accused had not committed sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, she has blown hot and cold in the same breath. However, her admission during her cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor that the statement Ext. PW-1/B was given by her in the Court without any fear and that she signed the same after acknowledging the contents thereof read over and explained to her coupled with the testimony of PW-25 Sh. Anil Sharma, the then ACJM, Ghumarwin, the only inescapable conclusion would be that before recording her statement, the Magistrate made her aware that she was not bound to make any statement and in case she opt for it, such statement can be used against her. It is thereafter she made the statement Ext. PW-1/B voluntarily, the contents whereof were read over and explained to her which she has also admitted while in the witness-box as PW-1. She has acknowledged the statement so made and put her signature thereon at point 'A' encircled red. Nothing contrary has come in his statement in the cross-examination that Ext. PW-1/B is not recorded in accordance with law, hence not legally admissible. True it is that the statement recorded in the Court on oath has evidentiary value as compared to a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The present, however, is a case where irrespective of the prosecutrix having denied the accused subjected her to sexual intercourse, admitted in her cross-examination conducted on behalf of the prosecution by learned Public Prosecutor that she had made the statement Ext. PW-1/B in the Court. The statement Ext. PW-1/B reveals that it is the accused who had subjected her to sexual intercourse. No doubt, the prosecutrix tried to confuse the whole issue, may be due to pressure of family members because the accused is none else but her real Uncle with a view to save him from his prosecution, however, her admission that identification memo bears her signature and that the statement Ext. PW-1/B was given by her in the Court without any fear and signed the same after acknowledging its contents which were read over and explained to her, coupled with the expert opinion i.e. report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ext. PW-9/D and the opinion based upon the same given by PW-9 Dr. PW-1/B was given by her in the Court without any fear and signed the same after acknowledging its contents which were read over and explained to her, coupled with the expert opinion i.e. report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ext. PW-9/D and the opinion based upon the same given by PW-9 Dr. Isha Sharma, learned trial Judge has rightly concluded that the accused has subjected her to sexual intercourse. 23. Otherwise also, there is no denial so as to the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse and became pregnant. The factum of the pregnancy came to the notice of grandmother and ultimately to her mother PW-2 Meeran Devi when on complaint of pain in her stomach, she was taken to hospital and on the basis of ultra sound got conducted, the doctor told that she was pregnant. The matter was not reported to the police, may be the honour of the family was at stake because it is the accused, her real Uncle has subjected the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse. Although, the mother of the prosecutrix PW-2 Meeran Devi while lodging FIR Ext. PW-14/A and stating that on account of her illness, the matter could not be reported earlier has made an effort to explain such unbecoming behavior as normally on coming to know that her daughter is pregnant, the report should have been lodged in the Police Station, however, unsuccessfully because the explanation so forthcoming is nothing but an attempt to save the accused from his prosecution. It is for this reason that in the FIR also, he has not named an offender and rather some unknown boy is stated to have subjected the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse when she was on her way to school. This part of the statement of PW-2 Meeran Devi in the FIR Ext. PW-14/A and while in the witness-box as PW-2 cannot be believed to be true by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother PW-2 Meeran Devi that the accused never subjected her to sexual intercourse and rather it is some unknown person who committed sexual intercourse with her when she was going to school is bound to fall to the ground having no legs to stand. 24. Therefore, the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother PW-2 Meeran Devi that the accused never subjected her to sexual intercourse and rather it is some unknown person who committed sexual intercourse with her when she was going to school is bound to fall to the ground having no legs to stand. 24. It is significant to note that PW-12 Piar Chand who has been associated by the prosecution during the course of investigation of the case has stated that it is in his presence, the prosecutrix disclosed that the accused used to do wrong acts with her during the year 2013-14 in the room of upper floor of their house which she had identified vide memo Ext. PW-1/A. 25. If coming to the testimony of PW-20 Parwati, her parents' house is situated at Reckong Peo. PW-22 Manju Devi, wife of the accused also belongs to district Kinnaur. The later came to the former on one day around 12 midnight and disclosed that her husband (accused) had illicit relations with his sister-in-law (PW-2 Meeran Devi) and also with the prosecutrix. Also that the prosecutrix became pregnant due to accused subjected her to sexual intercourse. PW-22 Manju Devi, however, has not supported the prosecution case as according to her they are not in visiting terms with the family of PW-2 Meeran Devi. She also seems to have deposed falsely to save the accused from his prosecution being her husband. 26. In view of what has been said hereinabove, it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix born on 24.6.1998 was minor below 18 years of age when subjected to sexual intercourse by none else but her real Uncle (Chacha). She incurred pregnancy and came to know about it when complained pain in stomach and taken to hospital by her grandmother. No report was lodged with the police and rightly so because everybody in the family may be interested to save the accused from his prosecution. However, fortunately, it is Child Line, Shimla which came to know that the prosecutrix subjected to sexual intercourse has stopped going to school on account of being pregnant. The complaint made to the police is Ext. PW-26/A. The author thereof is none else but PW-26 Minakshi Kanwar. This has led to the registration of FIR Ext. However, fortunately, it is Child Line, Shimla which came to know that the prosecutrix subjected to sexual intercourse has stopped going to school on account of being pregnant. The complaint made to the police is Ext. PW-26/A. The author thereof is none else but PW-26 Minakshi Kanwar. This has led to the registration of FIR Ext. PW-14/A. However, during the course of investigation, the person who subjected the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse was found to be none else but her real Uncle, the accused. It is satisfactorily proved that the biological mother of the still born male baby was prosecutrix whereas biological father, the accused. The report Ext. PW-9/D, the identification memo Ext. PW-1/A and the statement Ext. PW-1/B and also the part of the statement of the prosecutrix while in the witness-box as PW-1 amply substantiate that the offender was none else but the accused alone who has subjected the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse thrice. 27. No doubt, the prosecutrix and her mother PW-2 Meeran Devi turned hostile to the prosecution, however, as per the legal position well settled at this stage, that part of the statement of a hostile witness which supports the prosecution case if inspires confidence can be relied upon. Since in the case in hand, the prosecutrix has admitted her signature on the identification memo Ext. PW-1/A and also that the statement Ext. PW-1/B was made and signed by her in the Court, lead to the only conclusion that she has supported the prosecution case on all material aspects and also that she has been subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused because it is so recorded in both the documents referred to hereinabove. Learned trial Judge, as such, has rightly concluded that the hostile statement of the prosecutrix and her mother cannot be taken as ground to disbelieve the prosecution story especially when the scientific investigation and the link evidence available on record connect the accused with the commission of offence. It is worth mentioning that the evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of official witnesses supplies necessary links in support of the prosecution case, because PW-5 HC Mohinder Singh, the then MHC, Police Station Ghumarwin has supported the prosecution case qua the case property deposited with him and the same later on was forwarded by him to FSL. There is nothing to disbelieve his version as has come on record. PW-4 HHC Dinesh Chand has supported the prosecution case qua the case property i.e. one vial duly sealed in a parcel deposited by him in RFSL at Mandi vide RC No. 103/14. PW6 LC Anita Devi has deposed that the samples preserved by the doctor and handed over to her were given by her to ASI Sita Ram. She remained on duty with the prosecutrix during her hospitalization on 8/9.6.2014 in the hospital at Bilaspur. The case property was handed over to PW-7 Const. Suneel Kumar vide RC No. 226/14 and as per his statement, he deposited the same in safe condition in SFSL, Junga. PW-13 SI Mehar Singh has obtained the extract of birth register Ext. PW-3/A and the date of birth certificate Ext. PW3/B from PW-3 Ravinder Kumar, Secretary Gram Panchayat, Kothi. PW-19 ASI Kewal Singh has investigated the case. On receipt of the FSL report Ext. PW-9/D from SFSL, Junga, according to which the prosecutrix and the accused were found to be the biological mother and father of the still born child, the accused was arrested by this witness after interrogation. He has also prepared the memo Ext. PW1/A on identification of the room where the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused thrice on the identification given by her. It is he who moved to the Medical Officer for conducting medical examination of the accused and obtained the MLC Ext. PW-8/B as per which the accused was found to be capable of committing sexual intercourse. PW-26 Minakshi Kanwar has made the application to the police. 28. The oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, therefore, has established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He, as such, has rightly been convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376(2) IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 29. In the matter of quantum of sentence, we, however, are in agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned defence counsel for the reason that the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant time was little less than 16 years because in case the date when she conceived is taken as 20.3.2014 as she gave in her statement, she was about 15 years 9 months old at that time. Anoop Chitkara, learned defence counsel for the reason that the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant time was little less than 16 years because in case the date when she conceived is taken as 20.3.2014 as she gave in her statement, she was about 15 years 9 months old at that time. Of course, the prosecutrix was minor and as such the arguments that she had attained the age of discretion and consenting party to the sexual act, hardly carry any substance. However, while considering the question of quantum of sentence, this Court will be failing in its duty if not take into consideration the conduct of the prosecutrix that even after subjected to sexual intercourse thrice by the accused she did not opt for apprizing her mother PW-2 Meeran Devi or anyone else in the family, including her grandmother about such an act committed by the accused with her. The prosecution though has made an attempt to show that the accused was in physical relations with the mother of the prosecutrix (his Bhabhi) also, however, unsuccessful because Manju, his wife who allegedly told PW-20 Parwati in this regard did not support the prosecution case while in the witness-box as PW-22 and rather turned hostile to the prosecution. In the totality of the circumstances, more particularly, the age of the prosecutrix, it is not a rarest of the rare case where maximum sentence i.e. imprisonment for life for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) & (n) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act should have been passed against the accused. 30. For all the reasons hereinabove, this appeal partly succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently instead of life imprisonment, the appellant-convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as fine under Section 376(2)(f) & (n). In default to pay the fine amount, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. He is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- as fine for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. On his failure to pay the fine amount, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Both the sentences, however, shall run concurrently. 50,000/- as fine for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. On his failure to pay the fine amount, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Both the sentences, however, shall run concurrently. The amount of fine, if deposited by the appellant-convict shall be paid to the prosecutrix through her mother PW-2 Meeran Devi as compensation. The impugned judgment shall stand modified accordingly.