JUDGMENT : Arvind Kumar Verma, J. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2023 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 70 of 2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction under Section Sentence (Rigorous imprisonment) Fine In default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment 366A IPC 6 years Rs. 200/- 06 months 450 IPC 10 years Rs. 200/- 06 months 376(3) IPC 20 years Rs. 200/- 06 months 4 of POSCO Act 20 years Rs. 200/- 06 months All sentences have been directed to run concurrently and Sentences already undergone to be adjusted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 03.09.2021, the applicant/victim has lodged a written report (Ex.P-8) in Police Station – Ramanjunagar to the effect that on 02.09.2021 at around 07.00 pm, while she was washing utensils in the courtyard of the house, the accused entered her house, caught hold of her, dragged her into the bush behind her house covering her mouth with his hand and committed rape on her and when she screamed “Dai-Dai”, save me, her father came and caught the accused after hearing her voice. Based on the written report of the applicant (Ex.P-8), First Information Report No. 153/2021 was registered by Police Station – Ramanujnagar under Section 366, 376(3), 450 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) vide Ex.P-9. Subsequently, on 04.09.2021, after arrest of the accused and completion of investigation, charge-sheet No.128/2021 has been submitted before the concerned trial Court. 3. The learned Special Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 366A, 376(3), 450 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. 4. Subsequently, on 04.09.2021, after arrest of the accused and completion of investigation, charge-sheet No.128/2021 has been submitted before the concerned trial Court. 3. The learned Special Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 366A, 376(3), 450 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. 4. Amongst others, the prosecution has exhibited the following documents in support of its case: - Crime Details Form (Exhibit P/1) - Property Seizure Memo (Exhibit P/2) - Consent Letter (Exhibit P/3) - Spot map (Exhibit P/4) - Property Seizure Memo (Exhibit P/5) - Consent Letter of Prosecutrix (Exhibit P/6) - Punchnama(Exhibit P/7) - Complaint Letter of Prosecutrix (Exhibit P/8) - First Information Report (Exhibit P/9) - Statement of Prosecutrix U/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P/ 10) - Order Sheet dated 06.09.2021 of JMFC (Exhibit P/11) - Memo to Head Master providing of admission discharge register (Exhibit P/12) - Property Seizure Memo (Exhibit P/13) - Copy of Admission Discharge Register (Exhibit P/14) - Supurdnama (Exhibit P/15) - Certificate (Exhibit P/16) - Medical Examination Report of Prosecutrix (Exhibit P/17) - Examination Report of seized Cloth of prosecutrix (Exhibit P/18) - Medical examination report of accused (Exhibit P/19) - Examination Report of seized underwear of accused (Exhibit P/20) - Notice U/s.91 of Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P/21) - School Certificate of prosecutrix (Exhibit P/22) - Memo to MO for Medical examination of prosecutrix (Exhibit P/23) - Memo to MO for examination of seized cloth of prosecutrix (Exhibit P/24) - Arrest/Court Surrender Memo (Exhibit P/25) - Information of Arrest (Exhibit P/26) - Memo to MO for Medical examination of accused (Exhibit P/27) - Memo to BMO for examination of seized underwear of accused (Exhibit P/28) - Memo to JMFC requesting to record the statement of prosecutrix U/s. 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P/29) - Memo to Tahsildar requesting for spot map (Exhibit P/30) - Property Seizure Memo (Exhibit P/31) - Memo to FSL for Chemical examination of seized articles (Exhibit P/32) - Receipt of Exhibits (Exhibit P/33) - Copy of Seized Articles Register (Exhibit P/34) - Application to Tahsildar furnishing the spot map (Exhibit P/35) 5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses namely, Mother of the victim (PW-1), Father of the victim (PW-2), Prosecutrix (PW-3), Smt. Sunita Kujur (PW-4, In-charge Headmistress of Government Primary School, Barbaspur, Dr. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses namely, Mother of the victim (PW-1), Father of the victim (PW-2), Prosecutrix (PW-3), Smt. Sunita Kujur (PW-4, In-charge Headmistress of Government Primary School, Barbaspur, Dr. Rajshree Singh (PW-5), who had examined the victim on 03.09.2021, Dr. Sumit Kumar Soni (PW-6), who had examined the appellant on 04.09.2021 and found the appellant to be capable of performing sexual intercourse, Vipin Lakda(PW-7), the investigating officer who had conducted the investigation and in his deposition had explained the sequence of events and the manner of investigation, Sarita Nag (PW-8), the patwari, who has prepared the spot map of the incident site, Sunita Bhardwaj (PW-9), the Sub Inspector who had recorded the statement of the victim on 04.09.2021 as was stated by the victim and Grand mother of prosecutrix (PW-10). 6. The statement of the convict/appellant was recorded under section 313 CrPC. He has expressed his ignorance about most of the questions, however, some of them were denied as well. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. 7. In support of his case, the convict/appellant had produced the copy of Rin Pustika (Kishan Kitab) marked as Ex.D/1 and judgment dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in S.T. No. 21/2018, marked as Ex.D/2 and also got the statements of the victim and her husband, recorded, which are exhibited as Exs. D/3 & D/4 respectively. Accused has also examined himself (DW-1), Umashankar Rajwade (DW-2) and Brijlal Kerketta (DW-3) as defence witnesses. 8. The learned trial Judge, after considering the statement of witnesses and evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 9. The present appeal was filed on 09.10.2023 and the matter was admitted for hearing on 02.01.2024. Thereafter, on 23.02.2024, the matter was listed for hearing on IA No. 1 of 2023, i.e. application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. The said application stood dismissed on the said date and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally and reserved for judgment. 10. Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant/convict submits that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law by solely relying on the testimony of interested witnesses. The said application stood dismissed on the said date and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally and reserved for judgment. 10. Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant/convict submits that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law by solely relying on the testimony of interested witnesses. There are omissions and contradictions in the statement of the witnesses which has not been properly taken into consideration. The age of the victim has also not been properly assessed, PW-4 Sunita Kujur in her cross-examination has admitted the age of the victim mentioned in the School Register was recorded on assumption Moreover, the learned trial Court should have considered the fact that there is some previous dispute between father of victim and father of accused, the appellant has been falsely implicated and their is no conclusive evidence was put-forth by the prosecution to establish the age of the victim also the learned trial Court ought to have considered that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish that on the date of incident the victim was below 18 years of age, therefore, no offence under Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, is made out and the conviction is based on conjecture and surmises. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting and sentencing the convict/appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph. There is ample evidence on record to hold the appellant guilty of the offence. The order passed by the learned trial Court needs no interference and the appeal filed by the convict/appellant be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. In the case in hand, the FIR was lodged by the victim herself. The incident is said to have occurred on 02.09.2021 at about 07:00 p.m. and the written complaint and the FIR was made on 03.09.2021. Hence, there can be no manner of doubt that no written complaint was made by the victim. 14. The first question for consideration before this Court would be, whether the trial Court is rightly held that on the date of incident, the victim was minor below the age of 16 years ? 15. Hence, there can be no manner of doubt that no written complaint was made by the victim. 14. The first question for consideration before this Court would be, whether the trial Court is rightly held that on the date of incident, the victim was minor below the age of 16 years ? 15. When a person is charged for the offence punishable under the POCSO Act, or for rape punishable in the Indian Penal Code, the age of the victim is significant and essential ingredients to prove such charge and the gravity of the offence gets changed when the child is below 18 years, 12 years and more than 18 years. Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act defines the “child” which means any person below the age of eighteen years. 16. In the present case, the prosecution has presented a certified copy of the dakhil kharij register (Ex.P/14) of the Government Primary School, Barbaspur, in which the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 30.07.2008. In this regard, the Incharge Headmaster of the school, Smt. Sunita Kujur (PW-4), appeared in the Court and displayed the original dakhil kharij register, in which the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 30.07.2008. Although the witness accepts the suggestion of the defence in para 5 of her cross-examination that the date of birth of the victim is written in the school register on basis of assumption, but again accepts in para 4 that the date of birth of the victim is mentioned in the school register at the time of admission. The name has not been entered by him, due to which the statement of the witness does not appear to be reliable. 17. The definition of “child” has been given in Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act, according to which “child” means any person whose age is less than 18 years. Attested copy of the dakhil kharij register (Ex.P/14C), certificate issued by the headmistress (Ex.P/16) and attested copy of the Primary Education Completion Certificate (Ex.P/22), in which the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 30.07.2008, will be considered correct because the above documents are public documents, which are maintained by the school in which the victim studied before this incident, no document has been proved by the accused in rebuttal. 18. 18. As per the provisions contained in Section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, {hereinafter referred to as ‘the Juvenile Justice Act’} the birth certificate obtained from the school is sufficient evidence regarding the age of the child and in relation to the said certificate, it will be assumed that the age of the child is correctly mentioned in the said document. Although the above provision is related to the delinquent child, but in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahadev Vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 14 SCC 637 , the age of the victim (child) has also been determined to be determined under the same method by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For the above reason, the procedure prescribed for determining the age of the victim (child) under the provisions mentioned in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act will be considered. 19. Therefore in the light of above provisions, the learned trial Court has held that on the date of incident i.e. on 02.09.2021, the victim was 13 years, 01 month, 03 days i.e. less than 16 years as per her date of birth 30.07.2008. The defence has not presented any oral or documentary evidence to refuse the said date of birth, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the date of birth of the victim, as 30.07.2008 hence, the trial Court has rightly held that the date of birth of the victim is 30.07.2008 and on the date of incident, she was minor having aged about 13 years, 01 month, 03 days i.e. less than 16 years. 20. The next questions for consideration before us are (i) Did the accused trespass in the residence of the victim at around 07.00 pm on the evening of 02.09.2021 with an intention of committing a crime punishable with life imprisonment ? (ii) Did the accused, on the above mentioned incident, date, time and place, abduct the victim, who is a minor below 16 years of age, with an intention of forcing or luring her into inappropriate sexual intercourse or marriage ? (iii) Did the accused commit penetrative sexual assault by having sexual intercourse with the victim, who is a minor girl below 16 years of age, on the above mentioned incident, date, time and place ? 21. (iii) Did the accused commit penetrative sexual assault by having sexual intercourse with the victim, who is a minor girl below 16 years of age, on the above mentioned incident, date, time and place ? 21. In this regard, the statement of the victim (PW-3) is most important, who has stated that she knows the accused, is his neighbour, on the date of the incident i.e. 02.09.2021, while she was washing utensils in the kitchen at 07.00 pm, the accused dragged her near a plum tree and raped her, after which her father came and rescued her. Then she had told about the incident to her family members, the First Information Report (Ex.P/9) was recorded on the basis of her written report (Ex.P/8) on 03.09.2021. 22. Supporting the allegations of the witness, the Investigating Officer, Vipin Lakra (PW-7) has stated that on 03.09.2021 on the basis of written report of the victim (Ex.P/8), First Information Report (Ex.P/9) has been registered. 23. After declaring the victim as a hostile witness by the prosecution, when asked leading questions, she accepts the suggestion that the incident which she is narrating happened on date of 02.09.2021, again accepts that on the date of the incident, the accused came to her house and asked her to go back. When she refused, he forcefully took her to the bush and raped her. Hearing the commotion, her father came to save her. 24. In para 3 of her cross-examination, she accepts the suggestion of the defence that on the date of the incident, it was dark when she was washing the utensils, at that time her grand-father was eating food there, it is her own statement that her grand-father is quite weak, but rejects the suggestion in para 4 that the accused did not take her to the bush by holding her hand and did not do anything wrong to her, but accepts the suggestion that she knows what rape is. She further rejects the defence’s suggestion that her father had seen her talking to the accused, she herself stated that she was not talking. She further rejects the defence’s suggestion that her father had seen her talking to the accused, she herself stated that she was not talking. She also admits that the accused was beaten up by her father, again admits that the parents of the accused had come to her house and were quarreling with her father, it is a self-evident statement that the parents of the accused had beaten her father by throwing stones, wanted to kill him, but rejects the suggestion that the accused had only talked to her, had done no wrong, she has given a self-confessed statement that he had done wrong, again denies that she is giving the statement on someone’s account. The statement itself is that she is narrating what happened, thus, the statement of the victim has remained completely unbroken in cross-examination. 25. PW-2, father of the victim, states that he knows the accuse, on the morning of the incident, all the family members had gone to the farm, the victim had come home first, when he returned after sometime, he saw that the victim was not there, he asked his father, who told that “she was right here, giving him food and washing utensils”, when he looked around she was not seen, only the voice of calling “Dai-Dai” was heard, when he went there, he saw that the accused was climbing on top of the victim and raping her. His daughter/victim was lying on the ground, he had caught hold of the accuse and taken him home, thereafter accused’s parents came and fought and took the accused away. A report was lodged in the police station the next day. 26. After declaring this witness as a hostile witness by the prosecution and on asking leading questions, he accepted the suggestion that while giving his statement to the police, he had told that Gopal Ketketta of his village had entered his house and held his daughter/victim and pressed her mouth with his hand. He dragged her towards the bush behind her and raped her, again admitted that her daughter/victim had told the whole story when asked. In para 6 of his cross-examination, this witness accepts the suggestion of the defence that he had caught the accused and taken him to his home after beating him, but has rejected the suggestion that he had not seen the accused doing anything wrong. In para 6 of his cross-examination, this witness accepts the suggestion of the defence that he had caught the accused and taken him to his home after beating him, but has rejected the suggestion that he had not seen the accused doing anything wrong. In para 9, he has accepted that a police case was registered against him in the past, in which he had got bail from the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur, in which the father of the accused had got his bail from his loan book, but has rejected the suggestion that no incident was caused by the accused to the victim. 27. PW-1, the mother of the victim, has stated that she knows the accused, he had taken her daughter/victim to the dand and raped her twice, they came to know about it after she screamed, after coming home the victim told about the incident to her. After declaring this witness as a hostile witness by the prosecution and on asking leading questions, she accepts the suggestion that her husband was not at home on the said day and was searching here and there for the victim. At around 07.00 in the evening, after hearing the voice “Dai-Dai Bachao”, her husband went and saw that the accused Gopal was climbing on top of his daughter/victim and raping her. She again admits that her daughter/victim also told her about the above incident. In para 7 of her cross-examination, this witness accepts the suggestion of the defence that a rape case is going on against her and her husband, in which bail was granted by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur, in which the bail as taken by the father of the accused. 28. PW-10, the grandmother of the victim, has stated that she knows the accused, when she came home on the date of incident, the victim was not there, half of the utensils had been washed in the courtyard, after which the father of the victim brought her, when asked, she told that the accused had stuffed a cloth in her mouth and committed rape. In cross- examination, the witness accepts the suggestion of defence that her husband and victim's father were at home on the date of incident, but rejects the suggestion that there was a fight between the victim's father and the accused's father, she herself stated that there was a little controversy relating to farming, but she rejects the suggestion that the victim did not tell her anything. 29. In this way, although there are some contradictory statements in the statements of the victim's parents and her grandmother, the said witnesses have not denied in their entire statement to the Court that the accused had caused the incident to the victim. 30. Investigating officer, Vipin Lakra (PW-7) has stated that on 03.09.2021, after obtaining the consent from victim and her mother vide Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-6 for examination of the genitals of the victim, the underwear worn by the victim at the time of incident was sent the Community Health Center, Ramanujganj for examination vide Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-24. 31. Supporting the allegations of the witness, Dr. Rajshree Singh (PW-5) has stated that on 03.09.2021, when the victim brought before her for examination, after external examination she did not find any injury, she was physically and mentally normal, after internal examination it was found that the hymen was old torn. After examining the panty of the victim, the witness found that there was a white stain on it, which was marked with a blue pen, her opinion was that clear opinion regarding the rape of the victim would be given after the FSL report and she prepared two slides of vaginal discharge of the victim. The slides and panty were preserved and sealed and handed over to the same woman constable advising her for FSL examination, her reports are Ex.P-17 and Ex.P-18. 32. The slides and panty were preserved and sealed and handed over to the same woman constable advising her for FSL examination, her reports are Ex.P-17 and Ex.P-18. 32. The main argument of the defence is that the father of the accused had taken the bail in favour of the victim's parents in another criminal case and wanted to get his name removed, due to this dispute, the accused has been falsely implicated, in support of this the accused Gopal Kerketta has been examined as DW-1, who has stated that when he was coming out of his house while talking on mobile, on the way the victim's father met him and said "as my father had taken bail of his and his wife and wants to get his name removed from it, therefore, he will file a false report against me" and while beating taken the accused to his house, some people came there and on the next day, a panchayat was held in the village. 33. Brijlal Kerketta, father of the accused (DW-3) has stated that a case was registered against the victim's parents in which he had taken a security of Rs. 50,000/- from his loan book for both of them and due to difficulty in buying fertilizer and seeds, he asked the victim's father to get his name deleted, but after evasive action, the victim's father denied the same and stated a fighting and beaten up his son, the accused, in connection with which a panchayat was also held in the village. The witness in support of his case has presented the loan book (Ex.D-1), certified copy of the judgment dated 08.02.2022 in Sessions Case No. 21/2018 (Ex.D-2) and attested copy of the statement of the accused in that case i.e. victim's mother and father (Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4). Similar statement has also been made by Umashankar Rajwade DW-2) in his Court statement. 34. Thus, perusal of all the oral and documentary evidence available on record shows that a written report has been filed by the applicant/victim herself in Police Station, Ramanujnagar regarding the accused entering the victim's house, forcibly taking her away and raping her, which is certified against the accused. 35. 34. Thus, perusal of all the oral and documentary evidence available on record shows that a written report has been filed by the applicant/victim herself in Police Station, Ramanujnagar regarding the accused entering the victim's house, forcibly taking her away and raping her, which is certified against the accused. 35. Since the burden of proving his innocence was on the accused in the light of provisions mentioned in Section 29 and 30 of the POSCO Act, but the accused has completely failed to prove that he was not present there at the site of incident, date, time and place, but was present somewhere else and the said incident has not been caused by him, neither any evidence has been presented by the accused in this regard nor any explanation has been given in the accused's statement, so that his innocence can be proved. 36. On the contrary, the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt through the statements of the victim including her parents, her grandmother, medical documents and the investigating officer that the accused, on the date of incident i.e. 02.09.2021 at around 7.00 pm, has trespassed into residence of the victim with the intention of committing a crime punishable with life imprisonment and with the intention of forcing and luring her into unauthorised sexual intercourse or marriage and committed sexual assault by having sexual intercourse with her. 37. In the case of Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573 , the Supreme Court observed and held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. 38. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, { (2019) 11 SCC 575 }, it was observed and held that as a general rule, if credible, conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It was further observed and held that sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. 39. It was further observed and held that sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. 39. In the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, { (2018) 18 SCC 34 }, the Supreme Court observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It was further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. 40. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the victim. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the victim can be sustained. 41. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court. 42. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict. 43. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 44. The appellant/convict is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2023. 45. Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any.