JUDGMENT : Subhash Chand, J. This criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of petitioner, namely, Amitabh Dutta @ Amitav Dutta against the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Dhanbad in Spl. POCSO Case No.62 of 2022 arising out of Bankmore P.S. Case No.311 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the discharge application moved on behalf of the petitioner had been rejected. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its entirety while rejecting the discharge application of the petitioner. The court below has failed to appreciate the allegations made in the FIR vis-a-vis the investigation done by the investigating officer. There is no iota of evidence to show that the petitioner had sexually assaulted or abused the informant. The pattern of implication in this case itself shows that the prosecution story was concocted. No offence under the POCSO Act is made out. The victim was not minor on the date of occurrence. The most impeachable evidence produced by the petitioner in regard to the date of birth was the Pan Card number as well as the running bank account of the informant, these two document showed the date of birth mentioned by the informant was false and accordingly, contended to allow this criminal revision and to set aside the impugned order passed by the court below. 3. The learned APP on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the impugned order passed by the court below is based on the allegations made in the FIR and also evidence collected by the investigating officer during investigation. Consequently, same bears no illegality and needs no interference. 4. It is the settled law that while framing charge or disposing the application for discharge moved on behalf of accused the trial court has to go through the allegations made in the FIR and also the evidence collected by the investigating officer oral or documentary during investigation and if on the basis of the allegations and evidence collected by the investigating officer there are sufficient ground to proceed with the trial only then the charge could have been framed. 5. 5. The prosecution case as per FIR version is that the informant given the written information with the police station concerned on 30.11.2021 with these allegations that about six years ago Amitabh Dutta bearing mobile nos. 9535349059, 8873166484 and 7225954455 who is resident of Siddi Apartment Devipara, Hirapur, PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad had taken her from her mother on the pretext to provide job to the informant in his house. He also assured the mother of informant that taking into consideration the economic condition he would also arrange her marriage at his own expenses. The wife of Amitabh Dutta had gone alongwith her daughter to Ranchi for education. In the meantime, Amitabh Dutta began to establish physical relation forcibly after administering her with some intoxicant. Having come to know the same she wept and this Amitabh Dutta criminally intimidated her and also allured the informant that he would get her marry with some an officer. He would give her the name of him as a father. On this allurement, he continued to rape her. The informant also became pregnant many times, however the fetus was aborted. On 04.11.2021 abortion was also done by administering the medicine to the informant. On 23.11.2021 the son of Amitabh Dutta came and he began to knock the door of the room as she opened the door he dropped her on the ground and in order to outrage the modesty of the informant also pulled her cloths and ultimately raped her. Amitabh Dutta and his son both had criminally intimidated her. On 29.11.2021 Amitabh Dutta, his wife, son and daughter made attempt to abduct her. Amitabh Dutta asked her not to file the case and in lieu of the same, he would give her a huge amount. He also stated that in failure he would get the mother of informant murdered by expending lacs of rupee. On this written information, Case Crime No.03111 of 2021 was registered with police station Bankmore under section 341, 323, 363, 313, 328, 376 & 34 of IPC and section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act. 6. In para-2 of the case diary the restatement of victim was recorded in which she reiterated the allegations made in the FIR. On this written information, Case Crime No.03111 of 2021 was registered with police station Bankmore under section 341, 323, 363, 313, 328, 376 & 34 of IPC and section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act. 6. In para-2 of the case diary the restatement of victim was recorded in which she reiterated the allegations made in the FIR. In para-3 of the case diary the mother of victim stated that in the year 2016 Amitabh Dutta came to her house for a maid and he also told that he would manage her education and marriage at his own cost. She agreed for the same and sent her daughter with Amitabh Dutta who resided at the house of Amitabh Dutta. All of a sudden on 23.11.2021 her daughter came to her and told in regard to her woe tale. This witness also stated in regard to the occurrence dated 29.11.2021 as was told to her by the victim. 7. In para-7 of the case diary the statement of Ram Dulari Devi, the maternal grandmother of victim was recorded. This witness stated that she introduced Amitabh Dutta with her daughter Sarita Devi who had asked for a maid. Her daughter Sarita Devi agreed on the allurement made by Amitabh Dutta and sent her daughter with Amitabh Dutta for the work of maid. On 23.11.2021 the victim came to the house and told in regard to the woe tale. In para-14 of the case diary, statement of Meghnath Goswami, the security guard was recorded. This witness stated that in Siddi Apartment in Flat No. 101 Amitabh Dutta came alongwith victim to whom he has told his daughter to reside therein. Amitabh Dutta used to tell the victim to be the daughter of his second wife. The victim also used to tell that her mother died. On 23.11.2021 the son of Amitabh Dutta came and what happened thereafter he is not aware. The victim has told him that Amitabh Dutta had done bad act with her and had not made any payment to her. Same kind of statement is given by witness Ranjeet Ram, the security guard of Siddi Apartment. 8. On 23.11.2021 the son of Amitabh Dutta came and what happened thereafter he is not aware. The victim has told him that Amitabh Dutta had done bad act with her and had not made any payment to her. Same kind of statement is given by witness Ranjeet Ram, the security guard of Siddi Apartment. 8. The statement of victim was also recorded under section 164 of Cr.PC in para-27 of the case diary, in which, victim stated that she came to house of Amitabh Dutta in the year 2016, the wife of Amitabh Dutta had gone alongwith her daughter for MBA education to Ranchi. Amitabh Dutta has given her cold drink and after having taken the same, she lost senses and in the morning she found herself naked. On being asked in the morning Amitabh Dutta criminally intimidated her. He had been continuously establishing physical relation with her for five years and in during these five years, many times abortion were done by administering her with medicine. On 23.11.2021 the son of Amitabh Dutta namely Abhisekh Dutta also made effort to outrage her modesty. 9. In para-62 of the case diary is given the school certificate of victim of the school DAV Madhya Vidyalaya, Dhanbad of Class-IV in which date of birth is given 20.03.2002. As per medical examination report, the age of victim is shown more than 18 years in para-67 of the case diary. This medical examination was conducted on 03.12.2021. In para-67 of the case diary, there is also pathological report of the victim wherein the pregnancy is shown positive, it is dated 04.12.2021. 10. Para 90 of the case diary is the statement of Flat No.2C owner Pradeep Chhatri who has stated that in January, 2018 he has given this flat to Amitabh Dutta on rent for a period of two years and in the year 2020 he vacated that flat. In para-107 of the case diary, the Secretary of Mangalam Apartment Mr. Rajeev Sharma has stated that Mr. Amitabh Dutta had come alongwith girl to reside in second floor in Flat No.302 at the second floor of the Apartment. After residing there for few months, he vacated the Flat No.302. 11. In para-107 of the case diary, the Secretary of Mangalam Apartment Mr. Rajeev Sharma has stated that Mr. Amitabh Dutta had come alongwith girl to reside in second floor in Flat No.302 at the second floor of the Apartment. After residing there for few months, he vacated the Flat No.302. 11. So far as the determination of age of minor is concerned, the same is to be determined in view of section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Board Act, 2015 which reads as under : “94. Presumption and determination of age.— (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under Section 14 or Section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age. (2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining— (i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order. (3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.” 12. (3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.” 12. Herein though as per the school certificate which was of class-IV the date of birth is shown 20.03.2002 and the admission of the minor victim was registered in DAV Madhya Vidyalaya, Dhanbad in Class-IV on 13.09.2011. This school certificate was not deemed to be authentic for determination of the age; therefore the investigating officer got her medical examination. As per medical examination report, in para-67 of the case diary, the age of victim is shown more than 18 years, this age was shown on 03.12.2021. 13. As per FIR allegations, the victim was taken to his house by accused to do the work of a maid on the allurement that he would get her educated and also get her married; but, subsequently the accused began to establish physical relation with her and as per FIR allegation and the testimony of the victim herself since 2016 to 23.11.2021 in these five years the accused many times established physical relation with her after getting her administered with some intoxicant and also alluring her in regard to giving the share in the property and during these five years several time abortion was done by administering her with the medicine. Therefore, as per medical examination report on 03.12.2021 the age of victim was determined 18 years old. Consequently in the year 2016 the victim was 14 years old and since 2016 upto 2021 till the date of attaining majority the petitioner accused had been sexually exploiting her and had made aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the victim. 14. Herein it would be appropriate to give the certain statutory provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012 which reads as follows : “5. 14. Herein it would be appropriate to give the certain statutory provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012 which reads as follows : “5. Aggravated penetrative sexual assault.—(a) Whoever, being a police officer, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child— (i) within the limits of the police station or premises at which he is appointed; or (ii) in the premises of any station house, whether or not situated in the police station, to which he is appointed; or (iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or (iv) where he is known as, or identified as, a police officer; or (b) whoever being a member of the armed forces or security forces commits penetrative sexual assault on a child— (i) within the limits of the area to which the person is deployed; or (ii) in any areas under the command of the forces or armed forces; or (iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or (iv) where the said person is known or identified as a member of the security or armed forces; or (c) whoever being a public servant commits penetrative sexual assault on a child; or (d) whoever being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home, protection home, observation home, or other place of custody or care and protection established by or under any law for the time being in force, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, being inmate of such jail, remand home, protection home, observation home, or other place of custody or care and protection; or (e) whoever being on the management or staff of a hospital, whether Government or private, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in that hospital; or (f) whoever being on the management or staff of an educational institution or religious institution, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in that institution; or (g) whoever commits gang penetrative sexual assault on a child. Explanation.—When a child is subjected to sexual assault by one or more persons of a group in furtherance of their common intention, each of such persons shall be deemed to have committed gang penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of this clause and each of such person shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone; or (h) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child using deadly weapons, fire, heated substance or corrosive substance; or (i) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault causing grievous hurt or causing bodily harm and injury or injury to the sexual organs of the child; or (j) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, which— (i) physically incapacitates the child or causes the child to become mentally ill as defined under clause (b) of Section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (14 of 1987) or causes impairment of any kind so as to render the child unable to perform regular tasks, temporarily or permanently; or (ii) in the case of female child, makes the child pregnant as a consequence of sexual assault; (iii) inflicts the child with Human Immunodeficiency Virus or any other life threatening disease or infection which may either temporarily or permanently impair the child by rendering him physically incapacitated, or mentally ill to perform regular tasks; or (k) whoever, taking advantage of a child’s mental or physical disability, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child; or (l) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly; or (m) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years; or (n) whoever being a relative of the child through blood or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster care or having a domestic relationship with a parent of the child or who is living in the same or shared household with the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on such child; or (o) whoever being, in the ownership, or management, or staff, of any institution providing services to the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child; or (p) whoever being in a position of trust or authority of a child commits penetrative sexual assault on the child in an institution or home of the child or anywhere else; or (q) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child knowing the child is pregnant; or (r) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and attempts to murder the child; or (s) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in the course of communal or sectarian violence; or (t) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and who has been previously convicted of having committed any offence under this Act or any sexual offence punishable under any other law for the time being in force; or (u) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and makes the child to strip or parade naked in public, is said to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault. [6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.—(1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person, and shall also be liable to fine, or with death. (2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.] 6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.-whoever, commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.” 15. In view of the allegations made in the FIR also evidence collected by the IO there is ample evidence against the accused to frame charge and proceed in the trial for the offence under sections 313, 328 and 376 of IPC and under section 6 of the POCSO Act. 16. Herein it would be pertinent to give the following legal propositions of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 16.1 In “Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Private Limited v. Sanjay Choudhary and others” (2008) 10 SCC 681 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-11, which reads as under : “11. Sections 227, 239 and 245 deals with discharge from criminal charge. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy it was noted that at the stage of framing the charge the court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused. The court has to see while considering the question of framing the charge as to whether the material brought on record could reasonably connect the accused with the trial. Nothing more is required to be inquired into.” 16.2 In “Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others” (2008) 14 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-38, which reads as under : “38. Nothing more is required to be inquired into.” 16.2 In “Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others” (2008) 14 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-38, which reads as under : “38. In my view, there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submission made on behalf at the stage of framing charge only such material as are indicated in Section 227 CrPC can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482 CrPC the court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislation in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have to be worded as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi case by the larger Bench therein to which the very same question had been referred.” 16.3 In “Palwinder Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others” (2008) 14 SCC 504 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-13, which reads as under : “13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it entered into the realm of appreciation of the evidence at the stage of framing charge itself. The jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge while exercising the power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. Charge can be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. The Marshalling and appreciation of the evidence is not in domain of the Court at the point of time. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 .” 16.4 In “Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and others” (2009) 16 SCC 429 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-2, which reads as under : “2. By the impugned order, the Special Court has discharged the accused Raghunath Lekhraj Wadhwa, Jitendra Ratilal Shroff and Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff from Special Case No. 4 of 1997. By the impugned order, the Special Court has discharged the accused Raghunath Lekhraj Wadhwa, Jitendra Ratilal Shroff and Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff from Special Case No. 4 of 1997. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the Special Court has virtually passed an order of acquittal in garb of the order of discharge. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, what is required to be seen is as to whether there are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. In our view, the Special Court was not justified in discharging the aforesaid accused persons.” 17. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and also keeping in view the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases given hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the court below does not bear any illegality and same needs no interference. Accordingly, this criminal revision deserves to be dismissed. 18. This criminal revision petition is, hereby, dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned court below is affirmed. 19. Let the copy of the judgment be communicated to the concerned court alongwith the record.