JUDGMENT : ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 30.8.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2013, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth ‘the Pocso Act’) Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation Under Section 6 of the Pocso Act Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that at the time of alleged offence, the victim (PW-7) was a deaf, dumb and mentally retarded girl of age of about 16 years. According to the entries of kotwari register (Article 1/Ex.P1C), her date of birth is 7.2.1997. According to the case of prosecution, on 1.9.2013, she went to attend a religious program along with her mother Bhagwati (PW-6) at Nayapara. At about 10 p.m. she told her mother by hints that she was going to attend the call of nature. After sometime, Bhagwati (PW-6) tried to search out the victim, but she did not find her nearby. Thereafter, a search for her was made, but she was not found. After sometime, she was seen weeping and coming back from towards the jungle. The Appellant was also coming behind her. On being asked, the victim told by hints that the Appellant had committed rape with her. Thereafter, First Information Report (Ex.P18) was lodged by Bhagwati (PW-6) on 2.9.2013. The victim was medically examined by Dr. B. Bara (PW-3). She gave her report (Ex.P6) in which she found that hymen of the victim was ruptured. Two abrasions were present in between labia minora and labia majora. Blood was oozing out on being touched on the ruptured hymen. The victim was complaining of pain in her private part. According to the doctor, sexual intercourse was committed with the victim within 24 hours of the examination. To determine age of the victim, her radiological examination was conducted. Radiological test report is Ex.P4 in which it was found that the victim’s radiological age was 15 years. The victim was complaining of pain in her private part. According to the doctor, sexual intercourse was committed with the victim within 24 hours of the examination. To determine age of the victim, her radiological examination was conducted. Radiological test report is Ex.P4 in which it was found that the victim’s radiological age was 15 years. Statement of the victim was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. statements of other witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. The Trial Court framed charges against him. 3. To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. Statements of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been examined in his defence. 4. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in 1st paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that there is no conclusive evidence on record to show that at the time of alleged incident the victim was below 18 years of age. It was further submitted that entries of the kotwari register (Article 1/Ex.P1C) show that name of the child who took birth is Lukeshwari, but that is not the name of the victim. From the statement of the parents of the victim, it also appears that they have 3 children. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that Lukeshwari would be their other child. Therefore, the kotwari register does not support the case of the prosecution. It was further argued that radiological age of the victim is stated to be 15 years which also carries error of margin of 3 years on both sides and, therefore, age of the victim becomes 18 years. But, her age was below 18 years at the time of incident, no evidence is available in this regard. Therefore, conviction of the Appellant under Sections 4 and 6 of the Pocso Act is not sustainable. It was further argued that trial of the Appellant was conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, who, as contained in Section 28 of the Pocso Act, was not empowered to try special cases under the Pocso Act. Therefore, the whole trial is vitiated. It was further argued that trial of the Appellant was conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, who, as contained in Section 28 of the Pocso Act, was not empowered to try special cases under the Pocso Act. Therefore, the whole trial is vitiated. Since the age of the victim was not below 18 years, the act committed by the Appellant falls within the ambit of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code only. It was further argued that the Appellant has already undergone for about 7½ years, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Opposing the above arguments, Learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that though in the kotwari register (Article 1/Ex.P1C) name of the child is mentioned to be Lukeshwari, no material has been put forth by the defence to show that the victim has a sister, namely, Lukeshwari nor has any such suggestion been put before the parents of the victim in the Court. Therefore, the kotwari register (Article 1) relates to the birth of the victim itself. Apart from this, from the statements of Bhagwati (PW-6), mother of the victim and Narad (PW-15), father of the victim, it is established that at the time of incident, the victim was aged about 16 years. Referring to the Notification (Amendment) No. 4328/II-15-2/2012 Bilaspur, dated 21.6.2013 issued by this Court, it was argued by Learned State Counsel that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband was duly empowered to try the special cases under the Pocso Act. 7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 8. First, I shall examine the material available on record with regard to age of the victim. 9. According to the entries of kotwari register (Article 1/Ex.P1C), Narad (PW-15), father of the victim got the said entries recorded therein on 12.2.1997. According to the said entries, date of birth of child Lukeshwari is 7.2.1997 and she is third child of Narad (PW-15). The date 7.2.1997 shown to be the date of birth of Lukeshwari in the kotwari register (Article 1) has not been disputed by the defence in any way. Both mother and father of the victim, Bhagwati (PW-6) and Narad (PW-15), in their Court statements have deposed that the victim was aged about 16 years at the time of incident. The date 7.2.1997 shown to be the date of birth of Lukeshwari in the kotwari register (Article 1) has not been disputed by the defence in any way. Both mother and father of the victim, Bhagwati (PW-6) and Narad (PW-15), in their Court statements have deposed that the victim was aged about 16 years at the time of incident. Bhagwati (PW-6) has admitted the fact that they have 1 more daughter, who was studying in 7th-8th standard. But, name of that daughter is Lukeshwari has not been stated by the parents of the victim anywhere nor has the defence put any suggestion in this regard before them in the Court. Rather, in paragraph 10 of cross-examination of Narad (PW-15), the defence itself has suggested that the entries of kotwari register (Article 1) carry birth details of the victim herself. Furthermore, it was also suggested by the defence that the age of the victim was 16 years. Taking into consideration the discussion made above with regard to age of the victim, it is established that her age, at the time of incident, was below 18 years. Thus, the finding of the Trial Court with regard to age of the victim is in accordance with the evidence available on record. The Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant for the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of the Pocso Act. 10. With regard to jurisdiction of the Trial Court, there is no doubt that the trial was conducted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, which is an outlying station Court of Civil District Headquarter Raipur. Relevant provisions of Section 28 of the Pocso Act are as under: “28. Designation of Special Courts: (1) For the purposes of providing a speedy trial, the State Government shall in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, designate for each district, a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under the Act: Provided that if a Court of Session is notified as a children’s court under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006) or a Special Court designated for similar purposes under any other law for the time being in force, then, such court shall be deemed to be a Special Court under this section. (2) While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence other than the offence referred to in sub-section (1), with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial. (3) The Special Court constituted under this Act, notwithstanding anything in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), shall have jurisdiction to try offences under section 67B of that Act insofar as it relates to publication or transmission of sexually explicit material depicting children in any act, or conduct or manner or facilitates abuse of children online.” 11. Vide Notification No. 3526/21-B/13 dated 30.4.2013, Government of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur constituted and established 16 Fast Track Courts of Additional Sessions Judges. The notification reads as under: “GOVERNMENT OF CHHATTISGARH LAW AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MAHANADI BHAWAN, NAYA RAIPUR (C.G.) 492002 NOTIFICATION Raipur, Dated 30.04.2013 No. 3526/21-B/13. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Courts Act, 1958 (No. 19 of 1958), the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court, hereby, constitutes and establishes “Fast Track Court of Additional District Judges” in each district as specified in the schedule below with effect from 17th June 2013, namely:- SCHEDULE S. No. Name of District Name of Place No. of Fast Track Court 1 Bastar (Jagdalpur) Bastar (Jagdalpur) 1 2 Bilaspur Bilaspur 1 3 Dakshin Bastar (Dantewada) Dakshin Bastar (Dantewada) 1 4 Dhamtari Dhamtari 1 5 Durg Durg 1 6 Janjgir-Champa Janjgir-Champa 1 7 Jashpur Jashpur 1 8 Kabeerdham (Kawardha) Kabeerdham (Kawardha) 1 9 Korba Korba 1 10 Koria (Baikunthpur) Koria (Baikunthpur) 1 11 Mahasamund Mahasamund 1 12 Raigarh Raigarh 1 13 Raipur Raipur 1 14 Rajnandgaon Rajnandgaon 1 15 Sarguja (Ambikapur) Sarguja (Ambikapur) 1 16 Uttar Bastar (Kanker) Uttar Bastar (Kanker) 1 By order and in the name of the Governor of Chhattisgarh Sd/- (A.K. Samantray) Principal Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh Law and Legislative Affairs Department.” 12. Vide Notification No. 3528/21-B/13 dated 30.4.2013, Government of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur specified the aforesaid 16 Fast Track Courts of Additional Sessions Judges as the “Children's Court” for speedy trial of offences against children or violation of child rights. Vide Notification No. 3528/21-B/13 dated 30.4.2013, Government of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur specified the aforesaid 16 Fast Track Courts of Additional Sessions Judges as the “Children's Court” for speedy trial of offences against children or violation of child rights. The notification reads as under: “GOVERNMENT OF CHHATTISGARH LAW AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MAHANADI BHAWAN, NAYA RAIPUR (C.G.) 492002 NOTIFICATION Raipur, Dated 30.04.2013 No. 3528/21-B/13. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (No. 4 of 2006) State Government, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, hereby, specifies the Fast Track Court of Additional Sessions Judge, in each district, constituted vide Notification No. 3526/21-B/13 dated 30.4.2013 of this department as the “Children’s Court” for speedy trial of offences against children or violation of child rights. By order and in the name of the Governor of Chhattisgarh (A.K. Samantray) Principal Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh Law and Legislative Affairs Department Endt. No. 3529/XXI-B/2013 Raipur, Dated 30.4.2013 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx.” 13. Vide Notification No. 3618/II-15-2/2012 Bilaspur, dated 9.5.2013, this Court notified the places of sittings of all the aforesaid 16 Fast Track Courts of Additional Sessions Judges. No. 3529/XXI-B/2013 Raipur, Dated 30.4.2013 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx.” 13. Vide Notification No. 3618/II-15-2/2012 Bilaspur, dated 9.5.2013, this Court notified the places of sittings of all the aforesaid 16 Fast Track Courts of Additional Sessions Judges. The notification reads as under: ^^mPp U;k;ky; NRrhlx<] fcykliqj vf/klwpuk Øekad 3618@nks&15&2@2012 fcykliqj] fnukad 9-5-2013 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Courts Act, 1958 (Act No. 19 of 1958), the High Court hereby directs that the Fast Track Court of Additional District Judges (for Trial of Cases regarding Crime against Women) as constituted and established by the Law Department Notification No. 3526/21-B/13 dated 30.4.2013 for each Civil District in Chhattisgarh shall sit with effect from the date 17.6.2013 at the places specified against them in the table below: S. No. Name of Civil District Court of Additional District Judges Local Area/Sessions Division/Civil District Place of Sitting No. of Courts 1 Bastar (Jagdalpur) Jagdalpur 1 Bastar (Jagdalpur) 2 Bilaspur Bilaspur 1 Bilaspur 3 Dakshin Bastar Dantewara Dantewara 1 Dakshin Bastar Dantewara 4 Dhamtari Dhamtari 1 Dhamtari 5 Durg Durg 1 Durg 6 Janjgir-Champa Janjgir 1 Janjgir-Champa 7 Jashpur Jashpur 1 Jashpur 8 Kabeerdham (Kawardha) Kawardha 1 Kabeerdham (Kawardha) 9 Korba Korba 1 Korba 10 Koriya (Baikunthpur) Baikunthpur 1 Koriya (Baikunthpur) 11 Mahasamund Mahasamund 1 Mahasamund 12 Raigarh Raigarh 1 Raigarh 13 Raipur Raipur 1 Raipur 14 Rajnandgaon Rajnandgaon 1 Rajnandgaon 15 Surguja (Ambikapur) Ambikapur 1 Surguja (Ambikapur) 16 Uttar Bastar (Kanker) Kanker 1 Uttar Bastar (Kanker) BY ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT Dated: 9.5.2013 Sd/- (Ashok Kumar Panda) Registrar General Endt. No. 3619/II-15-2/2012 Bilaspur, Dated 9.5.2013 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx.” 14. No. 3619/II-15-2/2012 Bilaspur, Dated 9.5.2013 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx.” 14. Thereafter, the High Court, amending its Notification No. 3618/II-15- 2/2012 dated 9.5.2013, vide Notification No. 4328/II-15-2/2012 Bilaspur, dated 21.6.2013 made a new arrangement regarding jurisdiction of the aforesaid 16 Courts, which reads as under: ^^mPp U;k;ky; NRrhlx<] fcykliqj vf/klwpuk ¼la’kks/ku½ Øekad 4328@nks&15&2@2012 fcykliqj] fnukad 21-6-2013 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Courts Act, 1958 (Act No. 19 of 1958), the High Court hereby clarify the jurisdiction (Local Area/Sessions Division/Civil District) mentioned in the column No. 5 of in its previous Notification No. 3618/II-15-2/2012 dated 9.5.2013 as follows:- “the Jurisdiction of Fast Track Courts of Additional District Judges established for trial of cases relating to Crime against Women shall be limited to the area falling under the jurisdiction of district headquarters and the cases arising out of the area falling under the jurisdiction of the outlying stations shall be tried by the Additional District & Session Judges posted in the outlying stations.” BY ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT Dated: 21.6.2013 Sd/- (Ashok Kumar Panda) Registrar General Endt. No. 4329/II-15-2/2012 Bilaspur, Dated 21.6.2013 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx.” 15. Thus, from the above, it is established that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband was duly empowered to try the instant case. Therefore, the argument of Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the said Court was not empowered to try the instant case has no force. 16. As regards the sentence, I find that the Trial Court has imposed minimum prescribed sentence upon the Appellant and, therefore, the order of sentence does not warrant any interference. 17. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal. It is dismissed.