JUDGMENT : N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. P.P., AP appearing for the State, as well as Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The instant appeal has been instituted assailing the judgment and order dated 28- 02-2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, in POCSO Case No. 10/2023, convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for 20 years with payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-. 3. The brief facts leading to the institution of the present case is as under: The victim girl Ms. X lodged an FIR alleging therein that she was 17 years old and in the year 2020 when she was 14 years old, studying in Class-VII in KMC School, Nafra, the accused appellant had trapped her in fake love, by making false promise that he would marry her and also stipulated that she should not disclose anything about their relationship to any one or else people would separate them. She further alleged, therein, that on 14-06-2020, the accused appellant had come to her school, where she was studying in Class-VII, and asked her to go with him up to the market as he wanted to buy chips for her. She alleged that being allured by his words, she went along with him up to Nafra market on his motorbike. However, she was forcibly taken to his house located at Bichom and therein he had sexual intercourse with her forcefully. The informant further alleged that she believed that the accused appellant really loved her and that whatever he had done was on account his love towards her. She also stated in the FIR that she stayed with the accused appellant in his house on the believe that she was his lawfully wedded wife. She further alleged that for long 03 years, she was sexually exploited by the accused appellant and she was forced to take contraceptive pill for several occasions. She further alleged that in the year 2021, she had conceived but, however, the same was aborted by the appellant by giving her pill. She alleged that as a result of the same, she suffered physically and mentally. She further alleged that in the year 2021, she had conceived but, however, the same was aborted by the appellant by giving her pill. She alleged that as a result of the same, she suffered physically and mentally. She further alleged that in the middle part of 2021, the accused appellant started to have illicit relationship with other girls and therefore, she asked him to leave her in her parental house. However, he did not listen to her rather tortured her physically and mentally. She further alleged that she was even made naked in veranda of the house and tortured. She was threatened that she would be murdered, if she left his house. The petitioner also adduced an explanation in the FIR for the delay occasioning in lodging the same. On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered Rupa P.S. Case No. 17/2023, under Section 366 / 376/ 506 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner in addition to be examined medically, her statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On the matter reaching the court of the Special Judge, POCSO, charges came to be framed against the present accused appellant under Section 366 /376/506 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The accused appellant on the charge being read over and explained to him, having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued. During the trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined 12 (twelve) witnesses. Thereafter, the accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge, POCSO, on appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide judgment dated 28-02-2024, to convict the accused appellant under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, the accused appellant was acquitted of the charges so framed against him under Section 366 and 506 IPC. On the conviction of the appellant, herein, the learned trial court vide order dated 06-03-2024, proceeded to sentence the appellant, herein, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years and payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/- for aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for 03 (three) months. Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Mr. 20,000/- for aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for 03 (three) months. Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the appellant has, at the outset, submitted that the learned trial court while determining the age of the victim girl, had committed an error in appreciating the evidences coming on record. It is submitted that the school leaving certificate exhibited by the victim during her deposition was not proved by the authorities of the school from, wherein, the same was issued to her. With regard to the birth certificate as exhibited by the appellant, herein, it was highlighted that the said registration of birth of the victim girl was so done on 03-04-2017, i.e. after around 11 years from the date of birth of the victim girl, as projected by her. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the delay in registration of the date of birth of the petitioner was not explained, further the requirement of a permission to be taken in the matter from the concerned District Magistrate for delayed in registration of birth, was also not highlighted to have been so taken. He submits that the said birth certificate of the petitioner was not mandated to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the age of the victim girl. By referring to the deposition of the victim girl as PW-1 during the trial, the learned counsel has submitted that the victim girl had herself deposed during the cross-examination that her date of birth was previous to the date of birth as recorded in her birth certificate and she was older than that. Mr. Taloh has further submitted that the accused appellant during the trial had highlighted the said aspect of the matter before the learned trial court, however, the learned trial court failed to appreciate the said contentions, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant has the effect of vitiating the conclusions drawn by the learned trial court in the matter. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Taloh further submits that the school leaving certificate and the birth certificate if taken out of the equation, the deposition of the victim girl as PW-1 and of her mother as PW-2 would bring to the forefront that the victim girl, at the time of the offence alleged in the matter against the appellant, herein, was a major. A doubt having arisen in the matter, the same ought to have been so held in favour of the appellant, herein. He submits that the learned trial court basing on the said disputed questions of fact, without there being any materials brought on record to conclusively establish that the victim girl at the time of commission of the offence was a minor, proceeded to hold that the victim to be a minor during the period when the offence was allegedly committed against her by the accused appellant, herein. 6. Mr. Taloh submits that the victim girl during the year 2020 being a major and she having also admitted to the same during her cross-examination and she having also deposed of having proceeded to the house of the accused appellant, herein, on her own will, a marriage being also deposed to have been performed between them, the commission of sexual intercourse by the accused appellant is admittedly with the consent of the victim girl and accordingly, the charge under Section 376 would not be attracted in respect of the appellant, herein. 7. Mr. Taloh has submitted that the victim girl being a minor, being one of the foundational fact requisite for attracting the provisions of the POCSO Act, not being established in the present case by the prosecution, the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was not permissible to be drawn by the learned trial court against the appellant, herein. 8. Mr. Taloh, in the above premises submits that in the present matter, there being two clear distinct possibilities one which was in favour of the appellant, herein, the learned trial court failed to appreciate the matter that the view favourable to the accused is to be adopted and accordingly, submits that the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable and would mandate interference from this Court. 9. Per contra, Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. 9. Per contra, Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the materials coming on record would go to highlight that the victim girl, as on 2020, was admittedly a minor and accordingly, even if the sexual intercourse was committed upon her by the accused appellant with her consent, such consent being of no value, as it is established that the victim girl was a minor at the relevant point of time, the conclusion of the learned trial court that the accused appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim girl who was a minor, being established, basing of the evidences coming on record, the impugned judgment would not mandate any interference from this Court. 10. Ms. Jini has submit that the School Leaving Certificate of the victim girl as well as her birth certificate, were permitted to be adduced as exhibits in the trial by the accused appellant without any objection and accordingly he cannot be permitted thereafter to question the same. She further submits that the birth certificate of the victim girl was proved by the concerned authority, i.e. the Registrar of Birth and Death, Nafra from whose establishment the said certificate was issued and accordingly, the said certificate having demonstrated that the date of birth of the victim girl to be 10-02-2006, she being a minor as on 2020, the conviction of the appellant under the provision of Section 6 of the POCSO Act would not mandate any interference from this Court. 11. In the above premises, Ms. Jini submits that the present appeal would mandate dismissal and the impugned judgment of the learned Special Judge, POCSO would be called to be upheld by maintaining the conviction of the accused appellant, herein. 12. Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has adopted the arguments of the learned Addl. P.P. and has submitted that the conclusions reached by the learned Special Judge, POCSO in the impugned judgment being so based on a due and proper appreciation of the evidence coming on record during the trial, the same would not mandate an interference from this Court. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials coming on record. 14. The prosecution, as noticed hereinabove, had adduced the evidences of 11 (eleven) witnesses. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials coming on record. 14. The prosecution, as noticed hereinabove, had adduced the evidences of 11 (eleven) witnesses. For appreciating the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to carefully examine the evidence of all the witnesses. 15. The victim girl deposed during the trial as PW-1. The PW-1 deposed that during the year 2020, she was studying in Class-VII at KMC School, Nafra and had met the accused appellant, herein, on few occasions, wherein, he had proposed that he loves her. She further deposed that on 14-06-2024, the accused appellant took her to his residence at Bichum by proposing that he will marry and keep her happy. However, she deposed that he never solemnised marriage with her and used her for fulfilling his sexual desire. She further deposed that in the year 2021, the accused appellant started to torture her and also kept illicit relationship with other girls. She further deposed that in the month of February, 2021, she had become pregnant due to the commission of sexual intercourse on her by the accused appellant, however, he administered her medicine for which the pregnancy got aborted. She also deposed that she was willing to inform about the commission of torture by the accused appellant to her mother, however, she was threatened by the appellant, herein, who asked her not to inform about the same to her mother. PW-1 also deposed that during the year 2022, there was an agreement reached regarding the relationship between her and the accused appellant. In the said agreement it was deposed that the accused appellant had undertaken that he would not keep any illicit relationship with other girls and he would not torture her again. However, she deposed that during September, 2023, the accused appellant took another girl to his residence and accordingly, she informed everything to her mother and her mother came and had taken her back to her residence and thereafter, she had lodged an FIR in the matter. During her deposition, PW-1 deposed that her date of birth is 10-02-2006 and amongst others exhibited her original school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster of the school as Exhibit-3 and original birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, Nafra, as Exhibit-4. 16. During her deposition, PW-1 deposed that her date of birth is 10-02-2006 and amongst others exhibited her original school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster of the school as Exhibit-3 and original birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, Nafra, as Exhibit-4. 16. During her cross-examination, the PW-1 deposed that she knew the accused appellant and had gone with him as per own consent. She denied of her marriage being solemnised on reaching the house of the appellant. She further deposed that at the time of admission at KMC School, Nafra, she did not have a birth certificate and that the birth certificate exhibited was prepared on the basis of the said school leaving certificate. She further deposed that she had no medical evidence to show that she was pregnant and her pregnancy was aborted by the accused appellant. She also deposed that after the agreement was executed on 15-01-2022, the accused appellant had given one pig and an endi chadar to the villagers, however, the same things, were not given to her and her family member. She further deposed that she had left the residence of the accused appellant on 28-09-2023, but had not filed the FIR, immediately, thereafter as there was a talk of compromise through traditional ways and the accused appellant was seeking time. She further deposed that though her date of birth was mentioned as 10-02-2006, but her birth may be previous to that day and that she may be older than that. She further deposed that her relationship with the accused appellant was known to her family members. 17. P.W-2 Smti. Nima Thriju is the mother of the victim girl (PW-1). During her deposition she identified the accused person and also deposed that the victim in the present case was her daughter. She further deposed that while her daughter was a student of Class-VII, the accused appellant had gone to her school and taken her away. She deposed that she had told the accused appellant that her daughter is very small and he should drop her back at her residence. She deposed that although the accused appellant had taken her daughter on 14-06-2020, however, on 12-08-2020, the accused appellant had brought her daughter back to their house and thereafter, on 15-08-2020, the accused appellant had again taken her away. She deposed that although the accused appellant had taken her daughter on 14-06-2020, however, on 12-08-2020, the accused appellant had brought her daughter back to their house and thereafter, on 15-08-2020, the accused appellant had again taken her away. She deposed that during January, 2022, there was some dispute between her daughter and the accused appellant and accordingly, an agreement of settlement was executed by and between them. She further deposed that during the year 2023, the accused had tortured her daughter as he had taken another girl as his wife, for which her daughter had left his residence. She further deposed that after lodging of the FIR police had seized some documents and she signed therein as a witness. During her cross, the PW-2 deposed that her daughter had not informed her before 2022 regarding commission of torture upon her by the accused appellant. She further deposed that on 28-09-2023 she along with one Sanijang Khiluju went to the residence of the accused appellant and had brought back her daughter. She further deposed that they were willing to settle the dispute through customary way and accordingly, the FIR was lodged only on 25-10-2023. The PW-2, during her cross, further deposed that she was uneducated and though date of birth her daughter was mentioned as 10-02-2006, her date of birth may be prior to that date and her birth may be during 2002 or 2003. 18. PW-3 Ganga Sidasow is the father of the accused and he deposed that the police had enquired with him as to how the marriage had taken place between his son and the victim girl and he had stated that both his son and the victim were in love and stayed together. The PW-3 was declared hostile witness and the learned Public Prosecutor has sought for cross-examination of the witness, which was allowed. During the cross- examination of PW-3 by the learned Public Prosecutor, he had deposed that on 14-06- 2020, his son brought the victim to his residence at Thessa and since then they were living together. He further deposed that he had disclosed before the police that both of them married through customary way. During the cross- examination of PW-3 by the learned Public Prosecutor, he had deposed that on 14-06- 2020, his son brought the victim to his residence at Thessa and since then they were living together. He further deposed that he had disclosed before the police that both of them married through customary way. He further deposed that initially they were residing peacefully but later on quarrel started amongst them, leading to execution of settlement of dispute on 15-01-2022 and that in terms of the said agreement his son had not maintained illicit relationship with any other girl. The PW-2 further admitted that the victim girl was pregnant on two occasions and the pregnancy was aborted. He further deposed that during September, 2023 his son had married another girl. During cross- examination by the accused appellant, PW-3 deposed that he does not know about POSCO cases and that when agreement dated 15-01-2022 was executed, he knew both his son and the victim girl to be more than 18 years of age. 19. PW-4 Sri Chaphi Sidasow, who is the village headman of the Thessa village, deposed that he was a witness to the settlement agreement arrived at between the accused appellant and victim with regard to resolution of their disputes. He further deposed that the accused appellant and the victim had got married. During his cross, the PW-4 deposed that when victim was taken by the accused appellant to his residence she was small and there was no puja or celebration as per custom or tradition but there was a party. He further denied having seen any argument or torture between them. He further deposed that on the date of agreement, i.e. on 15-01-2022 both the accused appellant and the victim was above 18 years of age. He further deposed that during preparation of job card of the victim, no age proof was shown to him. 20. PW-5 Smti Sanijam Khiliju, deposed that she is the Gram Panchayat member of the village and was called by one Nikangju for attending a discussion with regard to some agreement between the accused appellant and the victim girl. He further deposed that during preparation of job card of the victim, no age proof was shown to him. 20. PW-5 Smti Sanijam Khiliju, deposed that she is the Gram Panchayat member of the village and was called by one Nikangju for attending a discussion with regard to some agreement between the accused appellant and the victim girl. She deposed that before she had reached, the discussion was over and there was an agreement arrived at, that the accused appellant would not commit any further offence and that they have settled their dispute and she had put her signature on the agreement as a witness. She further deposed that during the month of September, 2023 she was telephonically informed by the victim girl that the accused appellant was torturing her and accordingly, she enquired from the accused appellant and asked about the same, however, the accused appellant had denied committing any such torture. Thereafter, she deposed that she was informed by the victim girl that the accused appellant had taken another girl and he is living with his parents and the victim was alone at the residence at New Yayung village. She deposed that she, thereafter, along with her mother of the victim (PW-2) went there and brought back the victim with her belongings. She further deposed that there being no settlement arrived at in the matter, she had provided to the victim girl a phone number of an advocate and asked her to meet him. Thereafter, she deposed that a case was registered during the month of November and she was called by the Officer-in-Charge of the Rupa Police Station, for enquiry with regard to the present case. During her cross-examination, she deposed that the accused appellant is her maternal uncle and that before 15-01- 2022, she did not have any knowledge regarding the present case and that she did not know as to whether on 15-01-2022 the accused appellant and the victim were above 18 years of age. 21. PW-6 Sri Nichang Nikhangju, deposed that the victim girl was born in village and when she was going to school, she had married with the accused appellant. 21. PW-6 Sri Nichang Nikhangju, deposed that the victim girl was born in village and when she was going to school, she had married with the accused appellant. He further deposed that during January, 2022, there was some dispute between the accused appellant and the victim and there was a local settlement regarding their dispute at their village and he being a GPC, he was called to the settlement and it was decided therein that the accused appellant shall not torture the victim and will not marry again. He further deposed that after the agreement they went together and no information what happened thereafter was given. During the cross, he deposed that he did not know about the age of the accused appellant and the victim girl during the time of the agreement. 22. PW-7 Sri Norbu Sidasow, is another witness to the agreement executed between the accused appellant and the petitioner, herein and the accused appellant is his nephew. During his cross, he deposed that the victim girl had a voter card along with a job card and for issuing a job card a person should be more than 18 years of age and during that time aadhaar card, bank passbook and 03 (three) copies of photograph is to be submitted. 23. PW-8, Sri Tatom Pao, deposed that he is the BDO of Nafra and In-Charge of ADC- cum-Registrar, Birth and Death, Nafra. He deposed that as per record, date of birth of the victim girl was 10-02-2006. He identified Exhibit-4 to be the original birth certificate of the victim girl issued by his office and also identified the seal and signature of Registrar, Birth and Death, Nafra, as obtained therein. He further exhibited as Exhibit-8, the affidavit sworn by the mother of the child before Executive Magistrate, Nafra regarding declaration of date of birth of the child. He further exhibited as Exhibit-9, the Form-7, regarding the birth register report prepared by the jurisdictional Magistrate. He also exhibited as Exhibit- 10 birth register maintained in his office. During his cross-examination, PW-8 deposed that the birth certificate was not a tampered one as the same was prepared after about 11 years. He further deposed that it is not mandatory to register the birth within a year. 24. He also exhibited as Exhibit- 10 birth register maintained in his office. During his cross-examination, PW-8 deposed that the birth certificate was not a tampered one as the same was prepared after about 11 years. He further deposed that it is not mandatory to register the birth within a year. 24. PW-9, Sri Guru Dorjee Tongduk, deposed that while he was discharging his duties as Medical Officer, CHC Rupa, on 27-10-2023, the victim girl was brought by the police for her medical examination and treatment and he had examined her. He further deposed that alleged victim being a minor, consent for her medical examination, was given by her mother. The PW-9 further deposed that during the examination of the victim girl she had deposed that she was unmarried and at the time of examination, her age was 17 years. PW-9 further deposed that the victim girl had disclosed that prior to the alleged sexual assault, she did not have any sexual encounter with any person. However, it was further deposed that the victim had stated that after the alleged sexual assault, she had sexual intercourse with other person. PW-9 deposed that during the general physical examination of the victim girl, her vitals were found normal and she was of average build, her secondary characteristic are well developed and her emotional status were normal, she was of average intelligent and her gait was normal. PW-9 further deposed that on examination of the victim girl he found no bodily injury, which includes scratches and bruises on the body of the victim girl and there was no laceration on the body, no foreign hair and body fluids were found present. Further no external injury was found on her genital and that her labia minor were healthy and no injury noted, however, the hymen was having old torn. During his cross-examination, PW-9 deposed that hymen can be torn for any other reason than sexual intercourse and he could not say from the behaviour of the victim as to whether she was subjected to sexual assault. 25. PW-10, Smti Heikham Madhuri Devi, deposed that on 26-10-2023 while posted as Medical Officer at Rupa CHC, she had examined the accused appellant. She deposed that the accused appellant was a male aged about 20 years. She deposed that the accused had stated that he had cohabited with the victim girl during the period 14-06-2019 to 28- 09-2023. 25. PW-10, Smti Heikham Madhuri Devi, deposed that on 26-10-2023 while posted as Medical Officer at Rupa CHC, she had examined the accused appellant. She deposed that the accused appellant was a male aged about 20 years. She deposed that the accused had stated that he had cohabited with the victim girl during the period 14-06-2019 to 28- 09-2023. She deposed that she was of opinion that the accused was capable of performing sexual act. No cross-examination was made of PW-10. 26. PW-11, Sri Pema Rinchin, deposed that on 26-10-2023, he was posted as Constable at Rupa Police Station and that he had accompanied the Investigating Officer (I/O) during the investigation of the present case. He further deposed that the I/O had seized bottle containing 5ml of blood EDTA tube, plastic container with 2ml of semen, plastic containing 3ml of urine, plastic containing of pubic hair, plastic containing nail cleaving and that he had signed, therein, as a seizure witness. 27. PW-12, Sri Deveso Chaiton deposed that on 25-10-2023, he was posted as Sub- Inspector at Rupa Police Station and on that day at about 14:30 Hrs., a written FIR was lodged by the victim girl. He further deposed that on receipt of the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of the Rupa Police Station had registered Rupa P.S. Case No. 17/2023 under Section 379/366/506 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and had endorsed the same to him for investigation. Thereafter, PW-12, deposed with regard to the steps taken by him during the investigation of the matter. He also deposed of having seized birth certificate and school leaving certificate, adhar card etc., showing the date of birth of the victim girl. During his cross-examination, the PW-12, deposed that he had not forwarded the FIR to CWC Bomdila and that there was a violation of Section 19(6) during investigation. He further deposed that there were ingredients of Section 366 IPC as the girl was taken by the accused appellant to his residence. During his cross-examination, the PW-12, deposed that he had not forwarded the FIR to CWC Bomdila and that there was a violation of Section 19(6) during investigation. He further deposed that there were ingredients of Section 366 IPC as the girl was taken by the accused appellant to his residence. He further deposed that as per the FIR the place of occurrence was at Bichum village which falls within the jurisdiction Rupa Police Station, but during the visit to the place of occurrence, it was found that the place of occurrence was at New Bichum village which comes within Thrizino Police Station and as per the instruction of the senior officer the investigation of the same was carried out by him. 28. On closure of the prosecution witness, the learned trial court had examined the accused appellant under Section 281 / 313 Cr.P.C. During his such examination the accused appellant had stated that he and the victim girl were in a relationship and it was the victim girl who had proposed to him first and that their relationship was known to the family members of the victim girl. He further deposed that he had executed an agreement with the victim in the year 2022. He further deposed that on 14-06-2020 he had taken the victim girl to his home as per her request and that when her mother asked him to drop her back, the victim girl disclosed to her mother that she had come with the accused appellant on her own wish and she would marry him. The accused appellant also deposed that he would not be adducing any defence witness. 29. Basing on the materials coming on record during the trial, the learned trial court had framed 05 issues for consideration, which being relevant, is extracted, here-in-below, for ready reference: “i. Whether, the victim girl in present case was a child as defined U/s 2(d) POCSO Act during the period of commission of present offence? ii. Whether on 14.06.2020 accused Anand Sidasow has kidnapped the minor victim girl from Nagra from keeping of her lawful guardian and thereafter taken her to Bichum and detained her till 28.09.23 with false marriage and committing sexual assault and thereby committed an offence of kidnapping or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc punishable under section 366 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE iii. Whether during since 14.06.20 to 28.09.23 accused Anand Sidasow has committed repeated rape upon the victim girl and thereby committed the offence of rape punishable under section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE ? iv. Whether during 14.06.20 to 28.09.23 accused Anand Sidasow has committed repeated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim girl who was aged between 14 years 4 months 4 days to 17 years 7 months 18 days and made her pregnant and compel her to abort the pregnancy in the name of marriage and thereby committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable Under Section 6 of POCSO Act? v. Whether accused Anand Sidasow has physically assaulted victim on several occasions and threatened her with dire consequences and thereby committed an offence of criminal conspiracy punishable Under Section 506 part I of IPC?” 30. The first issue framed for determination by the learned Trial Court pertains to the question as to whether the victim girl was a child as defined in Section 2(d) of the of POSCO Act during the period of commission of the offence upon her. 31. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidences coming on record and also noticing the exhibited original birth certificate of the victim girl and her School Leaving Certificate issued by the Head Master of Government Middle School, Nafra, and therein, reflecting the date of birth of the victim girl as 10.02.2006, held that the exhibition of the said documents by the prosecution were not objected to by the accused appellant during the Trial. Thereafter, considering the matter further, proceeded to reject the objections raised by the accused appellant during argument, that the School Leaving Certificate (of the victim girl) (Exhibit P-3) was not formally proved by the prosecution and accordingly, the same cannot be relied in favour of the prosecution, by holding that the exhibition of the Exhibit P-3 was not objected to by the prosecution during the Trial. The learned Trial Court, with regard to the issue as to whether the victim was a child, drew the following conclusions: “42. The learned Trial Court, with regard to the issue as to whether the victim was a child, drew the following conclusions: “42. From the above law for the time being in force it is observed that age of person can be determined by the court by examining 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, the birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat, and only in the absence of 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. In present case prosecution has relied on the original school leaving certificate of victim girl dated which is issued by the Head Master of Govt. Middle School NMC Nafra as age proof. Besides the original school leaving certificate, the original birth certificate of the victim is also exhibited in present case. In both P.ex.3 and 4 which is school leaving certificate and birth certificate of the victim girl, the date of birth of the victim is reflected as 10-02-2006. There is no doubt regarding the original birth certificate and the original school leaving certificate of the victim girl. 43. It is contended that the victim has job card and election identity card in her name as she is major. But, the victim in her cross examination has stated that it was the accused who might have enter her name in voter list. The PW-3 GPC also deposed in his cross examination that he has not seen any age prof document during issuance of job card. But no such job card or voter ID card is submitted or exhibited in present case for contradicting the age of the victim and said documents does no find place in Section 94 of JJ Act as age proof of a person. 44. But no such job card or voter ID card is submitted or exhibited in present case for contradicting the age of the victim and said documents does no find place in Section 94 of JJ Act as age proof of a person. 44. In view of above material evidence available in present case and the law for the time in force it is hold that the prosecution has proved it beyond reasonable doubt that the date of birth of the victim girl is on 10-02-2006 As the offence in present case took place for the first on 14th June 2020 and the same continued till 28th September 2023 hence on calculation it is found that during the period of offence the victim girl was aged between 14 years 4 months and 4 days and 17 years 7 months and 18 days. Hence it is found that during the time of commission of offence in present case the victim girl was below 18 years of age. Hence as provided under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act the victim girl was a Child and she was below 18 years of age.” 32. Basing on the said conclusion drawn with regard to the age of the victim girl, the learned Trial Court had concluded that the victim girl was of 14 years 4 months 4 days to 17 years 7 months 18 days, during the period of commission of offence upon her by the accused appellant. Accordingly, it was held that in terms of the provisions of Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, the victim girl was a child and she was below 18 years during the period of commission of offence upon her. 33. Before proceeding to examine the conclusions drawn by the learned trial court, with regard to the age of the victim girl, during the period the offence was committed upon her, this Court would notice the provisions existing in this connection in the provisions of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 34. Provisions of Section 34 provides for the procedure in case of commission of offence by child and determination of age by Special Court. The provisions of Section 34 being relevant, is extracted here-in-below: “ 34. Procedure in case of commission of offence by child and determination of age by Special Court. 34. Provisions of Section 34 provides for the procedure in case of commission of offence by child and determination of age by Special Court. The provisions of Section 34 being relevant, is extracted here-in-below: “ 34. Procedure in case of commission of offence by child and determination of age by Special Court. (1) Where any offence under this Act is committed by a child, such child shall be dealt with under the provisions of [the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016)]. (2) If any question arises in any proceeding before the Special Court whether a person is a child or not, such question shall be determined by the Special Court after satisfying itself about the age of such person and it shall record in writing its reasons for such determination. (3) No order made by the Special Court shall be deemed to be invalid merely by any subsequent proof that the age of a personas determined by it under sub-section (2) was not the correct age of that person.” 35. Provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, provides for the presumption and determination of age. The provisions of Section 94 being relevant, is extracted here-in-below: 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.” 36. The provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 applicable in the matter of determination of the age of a child, mandates that the age of a person can be determined by examining the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available, and in absence thereof the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat and only in the absence thereof, age shall be determined by ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the committee or the Board. 37. In the case on hand it is noticed that the prosecution had relied upon the School Leaving Certificate of the victim girl (Exhibit-3) and the Birth Certificate of the victim girl (Exhibit-4) for the purpose of determination of her age. 38. In the backdrop of the above position of law this Court would now examine the conclusions drawn by the learned trial court with regard to the age of the victim girl. 39. 38. In the backdrop of the above position of law this Court would now examine the conclusions drawn by the learned trial court with regard to the age of the victim girl. 39. On a perusal of the conclusion so drawn, it is found that the learned Trial Court had arrived at its conclusion with regard to the age of the victim girl basing on the Exhibit P3 i.e. the School Certificate of the victim girl and upon the Exhibit-4 birth certificate issued by the Registrar Birth and Death, Nafra, West Kameng District. The learned trial court held that accused appellant during the trial had not objected to the exhibition of Exhibits- 3 & 4 and further that the Exhibit- 4, birth certificate being proved by the prosecution, by examining the Registrar of Birth and Death Nafra, from whose establishment the said certificate was so issued, the same were reliable for determination of the age of the victim girl. 40. As noticed hereinabove, Exhibit-3 is the School Leaving Certificate issued by the School authorities. The said certificate was issued on 18-08-2023. 41. A perusal of the said certificate would go to reveal that the victim girl had left the school on 18-08-2023, and that her date of birth according to the admission register was 10-02-2006. It was further disclosed, therein, that the victim girl as of 2020 was studying in class VII. The said certificate was exhibited by the victim girl during her deposition, however, the said certificate was not proved by the prosecution by adducing the evidence of the Head Master Government Middle School, Nafra, and also by exhibiting the admission register, wherein, the said particulars with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner was so disclosed. Further it was not established by the prosecution as to the basis on which the School Authorities had recorded 10-02-2006 as the date of birth of the victim girl, herein. The contents of the said certificate has not been proved by the prosecution by adducing the evidence of the school authorities. This Court is of the considered view that the Exhibit-3 School Leaving Certificate cannot be taken as to be the basis for determining the age of the petitioner, herein, more so, in view of the evidence adduced by the mother of the victim girl in the trial, which disputes the projected date of birth of the victim girl. 42. This Court is of the considered view that the Exhibit-3 School Leaving Certificate cannot be taken as to be the basis for determining the age of the petitioner, herein, more so, in view of the evidence adduced by the mother of the victim girl in the trial, which disputes the projected date of birth of the victim girl. 42. Having drawn the above conclusion with regard to Exhibit-3, this Court examine as to whether the Exhibit-4 can be taken to be the basis for determining the date of birth of the petitioner, herein. 43. The birth certificate issued by the jurisdictional Registrar of Birth and Death is a part of a public record. Section 35 of the EVIDENCE ACT , 1872, deals with relevancy of entry in a public record and the same reads as follows: “35. Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record] made in performance of duty. An entry in any public or other official book, register or record or an electronic record), stafing a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or frecord or an electronic record) is kept, is itself a relevant fact.” 44. A perusal of the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872, it would be apparent that an entry made in any public or other official book/register of record is required to be proved by a public servant who had made the entry in discharge of his official duty or by any other person in performance of duty, especially enjoined by the law. In the instant case the birth certificate, which was exhibited as Exhibit-4, was proved by the Registrar of Birth and Death, Nafra. As the Exhibit-4 was so exhibited without any objection, in so far as admissibility of Exhibit-4 is concerned, the same must be answered in favour of the prosecution. However, the same would not automatically absolve the prosecution from the requirement in law to establish the truthfulness of the contents of Exhibit-P4. As the Exhibit-4 was so exhibited without any objection, in so far as admissibility of Exhibit-4 is concerned, the same must be answered in favour of the prosecution. However, the same would not automatically absolve the prosecution from the requirement in law to establish the truthfulness of the contents of Exhibit-P4. Exhibit-P4, the birth certificate of the victim girl was so issued basing on the registration of the birth of the victim girl, in pursuance to an application submitted in the matter, by the mother of the victim girl on 13.04.2017. The birth of the victim girl is found to have been registered, basing upon the affidavit submitted in the matter by her mother. It is also found that the birth of the victim girl came to be registered after lapse of around 11 years w.e.f. her projected date of birth. Accordingly, it is also be examined as to whether the condition required to be fulfilled for delayed registration of birth was complied with in the matter. 45. The provisions of Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, dealing with procedure to be followed for delayed registration of birth and death, being relevant, is extracted here-in-below: “ 13. Delayed registration of births and deaths.— (1) Any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified therefore, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. (2) Any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. (3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after varifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. (3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after varifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. (4) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to any action that may be taken against a person for failure on his part to register any birth or death within the time specified therefor and any such birth or death may be registered during the pendency of any such action. 7” 46. A perusal of the provisions of Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, mandates that any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified thereof, but within 30 days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. It further mandates that any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the competent authority, on payment of prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a Notary Public or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. Provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act of 1969 mandates that, any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only by an order of Magistrate of 1 st Class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the Birth or Death and on payment of the prescribed fee. 47. In the present case the birth of the petitioner having been registered after about 11 (eleven) years of its occurrence, the prosecution has failed to establish that the delayed registration of birth of the victim girl was so made in compliance with the provisions of sub Section(3) of Section 13 of the Act of 1989. 47. In the present case the birth of the petitioner having been registered after about 11 (eleven) years of its occurrence, the prosecution has failed to establish that the delayed registration of birth of the victim girl was so made in compliance with the provisions of sub Section(3) of Section 13 of the Act of 1989. Accordingly, the said registration of the birth of the victim girl, herein, cannot be said to have been so made, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1969, and accordingly, the birth certificate Exhibit-4, in our considered view would not be admissible for the purpose of determining the age of the victim, herein. 48. As noticed hereinabove, the Registration of the birth of the petitioner was made on the basis of an application and an affidavit submitted in the matter by the mother of the victim girl and wherein, the mother had disclosed the date of birth of the victim girl to be 10-02-2006. However, a perusal of the evidence adduced by the mother of the victim girl as PW2 during the Trial of the case reflects that she was not sure about the date of birth as disclosed by her in her application as well as in the affidavit made before the concerned authority for registration of the birth of the victim girl. She had during her deposition deposed that the date of birth of the victim girl may be prior to that date and also may be during the year 2002 or 2003. Further, the victim girl while deposing during the Trial as PW1 had also deposed that her date of birth, though mentioned as 10-02- 2006, her date of birth may be previous to that date and she may be older than that. The said aspects of the matter goes to negate the disclosure as made by the PW2 in her application as well as her affidavit filed before the concerned authority for the purpose of registration of the birth of the victim girl and the registration of the birth of the petitioner basing on such information and that too without complying with the mandatory provisions of sub Section (3) of Section 13 of the said Act of 1969, in our considered view, renders the birth certificate (Exhibit-4) unreliable for determining the age of the victim girl. 49. 49. The learned trial court having placed reliance only of Exhibit- 3 & 4, for the purpose of determining the age of the victim girl and the same having been concluded by us to be unreliable for the purpose, the conclusions drawn by the learned trial court would not mandate acceptance. 50. Having drawn the said conclusion, we by considering the depositions of the victim girl as PW-1, as well as her mother as PW-2 and the depositions of the other witnesses, which brings to the forefront the fact that the victim girl on the date when she was taken away by the accused appellant to his house i.e. in the year 2020, was a major, proceed to hold that the victim girl as of the date she was taken by the accused appellant to his house, was a major. 51. Having drawn the above conclusions with regard to the age of the appellant, this Court notices that the issue no. 2 framed by the trial court pertains to the question as to whether the accused appellant is guilty of the charge under Section 366 IPC. The said issue was examined by the trial court, basing on the evidences coming on record and it was concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused appellant under Section 366 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt. 52. On perusal of the conclusions drawn in the matter by the learned Trial Court and an appreciation of the evidences coming on record, we are of the considered view that the conclusion of the learned Trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused appellant, herein, under Section 366 IPC is not erroneous and accordingly, would not mandate an interference. 53. The learned Trial Court, had thereafter proceeded to consider the issue Nos. 3 & 4 together. The learned Trial Court upon evaluating the evidences coming on record in the matter had proceeded to hold that the charge levelled against the accused appellant under Section 376 IPC as well as under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court in this connection being relevant is extracted here-in-below : “75. The conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court in this connection being relevant is extracted here-in-below : “75. From above discussion regarding the evidence and law this court has found that the prosecution has proved it beyond reasonable doubt that victim in present case was a child of 14 year 4 months and 4 days on 14.06.2020 and she was a student of class VII. Accused has taken her to his resident on 14.06.20 and since then he kept her as his wife and continued to sexually exploit her to satisfy his sexual lust till 28.09.23 when she was about 17 years 7 months of age. She was made pregnant and her pregnancy was aborted by the accused by administering medicine. Accused has maintained illicit relationship with other girls and married another girl during September 2023. Said fact shows that during entire period of about 3 years 4 months victim girl was a child and she was sexually exploited by accused Anand Sidasow in the name of love and marriage. This court does not hesitate to hold thatduring 14.06.20 to 28.09.23 accused Anand Sidasow has committed repeated sexual intercourse upon the victim girl and thereby committed the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and at the same time as the victim girl was child between 14. years 4 months 4 days to 17 years 7 months 18 days and accused has also made her pregnant and compel her to abort the pregnancy in the name of love and marriage he has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable Under Section 6 of POCSO.” 54. A perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court would go to reveal that the same is based on the reasoning that the victim girl during the period when the said offence was committed upon her by the accused appellant was a minor. We have already held, hereinabove, that the victim girl during the period i.e. w.e.f. 14-06-2020 to 28-09-2023 cannot be held to be a minor and that she was a major at the relevant point of time. 55. A perusal of the evidence of PW-1 i.e. the victim girl would bring to the forefront that she had deposed that she had gone with the accused appellant as per her own will and consent. 55. A perusal of the evidence of PW-1 i.e. the victim girl would bring to the forefront that she had deposed that she had gone with the accused appellant as per her own will and consent. Her deposition further brings to the forefront that she had continued to cohabit with the accused appellant on her own volition and that it was on account of certain matrimonial dispute arising between them, that she had left the residence of the accused appellant on 28-09-2023. The said evidence of the PW-1 finds corroboration from the Evidence of the PW-2, wherein, she had also brought on record the fact that her daughter was in love with the accused appellant. Further it is seen that in the year 2022 for the resolution of the disputes arising, between the accused appellant and the victim girl, an agreement was executed by and between them on 15-01-2022. 56. A perusal of the said agreement would go to reveal that the dispute noticed was with regard to matrimonial differences arising between the appellant and the victim girl and also on account of the fact that the accused appellant was having extra marital affairs. A perusal of the said agreement and the evidence of the villagers would also go to also reveal that the accused appellant and the victim girl, herein, were cohabiting as husband and wife. 57. In view of the above position, the cohabiting of the accused appellant and the victim girl being as per their own volition, the sexual intercourse occasioning in the matter has to be held so done with the consent of the victim girl, who was a major. More so, when for long 03 (three) years period when the victim girl had co-habited with the accused appellant, she or her family members had not lodged any complaint in this connection with the Police. 58. In view of the above position, the victim girl not being a minor, the victim girl and the accused appellant having cohabited together and having consensual physical relationship, the charge framed against the accused appellant, herein, under Section 376 IPC, and also under Section 6 of the POCSO Act in our considered view has not been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court in this connection more particularly with regard to the issue Nos. The conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court in this connection more particularly with regard to the issue Nos. 3 & 4 as framed would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 59. The learned Trial Court had as issue No. 5 framed a question for determination as to whether the accused appellant was guilty of an offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The said issue was considered by the learned Trial Court basing on the evidences coming on record and upon such examination the learned Trial Court had concluded that there was no material brought on record by the prosecution to bring home the charge under Section 501 Cr.P.C. against the accused appellant, herein, and proceeded to acquit the appellant from the said charge. On a consideration of the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court with regard to the issue No. 5, we are of the considered view that the same is well reasoned and would not mandate any interference. 60. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court notes the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaliram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , reported in (1973) 2 SCC 808 , wherein, it was held that in the event there are two views possible, i.e. one in favour of the accused and the other against him, the view in favour of the accused is to be accepted. Accordingly, the discussions made here-in-above having brought on record of existence of plausible alternative view, than that taken by the trial court, the same being in favour of the appellant, the benefit thereof is mandated to be extended to him. 61. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the Judgment dated 28-02-2024, passed by the learned Special Judge(POCSO), East Kameng, West Kameng, Pakke Kessang and Tawang, at Bomdila, Arunachal Pradesh, in POCSO Case No. 10/2023, convicting the appellant, herein, under Section 376 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, would call for an interference. Further the sentencing of the appellant vide order dated 06-03-2024 in pursuance to his conviction vide the Judgment dated 28-02-2024, would also not be sustainable. 62. Accordingly, the Judgment dated 28-02-2024, passed by the learned Special Judge(POCSO), East Kameng, West Kameng, Pakke Kessang and Tawang, at Bomdila, Arunachal Pradesh, in POCSO Case No. 10/2023, is hereby set aside. Further the sentencing of the appellant vide order dated 06-03-2024 in pursuance to his conviction vide the Judgment dated 28-02-2024, would also not be sustainable. 62. Accordingly, the Judgment dated 28-02-2024, passed by the learned Special Judge(POCSO), East Kameng, West Kameng, Pakke Kessang and Tawang, at Bomdila, Arunachal Pradesh, in POCSO Case No. 10/2023, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the sentencing of the accused appellant vide order dated 06-03-2024, passed by the learned Special Judge(POCSO), is also set aside. The appellant, herein, is acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant having been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11-09-2024, passed in I.A. (Crl.) No.43(AP)/2024, the bail bond stands discharged. 63. With the above directions and observations, the instant appeal, accordingly, stands allowed. Send back the TCR forthwith.