Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Register and Certificate Ext.PW6/A and abstract of Parivar Register Ext.PW6/B were correct as per the original record brought by him.

In the course of his cross­examination, this witness deposed that the copy of Parivar Register Ext.PW6/B was prepared in the year 2016 and he also admitted that the entries in the Parivar Register from serial No.1 to 13 were in the same hand. Learned Court also held that no suggestion was put to PW­6 on behalf of the accused that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was wrongly recorded in Ext.PW6.A. Learned Court also held that PW­8 Virender Sharma had proved the School Leaving Certificate of the prosecutrix Ext.PW8/B and in terms whereof also the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 12.11.1999. This witness deposed that he had issued the School Leaving Certificate on the request of the police and in his cross­ examination, he denied that the entry of the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 12.11.1999 was without any basis or that he had entered the same at the instance of the police. On the basis of these Exhibits, learned Court below held that it stood proved on record that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 12.11.1999 and as she was below sixteen years of age on the date of occurrence of the alleged offence, she was falling within the definition of "child" as contained in Section 2 (1) (d) of the POCSO Act.

both of them. She stated that on account of this, she never made any complaint to her mother. She denied the suggestion that her date of birth was not 12.11.1999, but was 12.11.1996 or that she was concealing her date of birth.

17. The statement of Neeta Ram is on record as PW­6 and he deposed in the Court that he was posted as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat since February, 2017 and before him, Kirpa Ram was posted as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. He stated that he recognized his writing and signatures and that he had brought the original Parivar Register Ext.PW6/A and abstract of Parivar Register Ext.PW6/B, were correct according to the record brought by him.

Panchayat Koti Bonch, Vikas Khand Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P., in terms whereof the date of birth of the prosecutrix was registered in the Panchayat record as 12.11.1999. Ext.PW6/B is the nakal of the Parivar Register, in which also the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 12.11.1999. This nakal Parivar Register on r to has been duly issued by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat concerned 18.01.2017. The School Leaving Certificate Ext.PW8/B, dated 18.02.2017, in terms whereof, her date of birth is registered therein was 12.11.1999.

in these Exhibits especially in the Family Register were incorporated after the registration of the FIR against the accused. Another fact which is relevant to be mentioned at this stage is that in this case, the initial initiation of the case was not at the behest of either the prosecutrix or her mother, but it was the Child Welfare Committee, Sirmour, District Sirmour, H.P., which put the process into motion after it came to know that a minor, i.e. the prosecutrix had given birth to a child in Dadahu hospital, District Sirmour, H.P. That being the case, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity with the findings which have been returned by the learned Trial Court, holding that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of incident and the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that the findings which have been returned to this effect by the learned Trial Court are either perverse or not sustainable in the eyes of law. On the contrary, the findings which have been returned by the learned Trial Court to the effect that the prosecutrix was a minor, are duly substantiated from the evidence on record and it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court erred in relying upon Ext.PW6/A, i.e. the birth certificate of the prosecutrix and Ext.PW6/B, i.e. the nakal of the Parivar Register, for holding that the prosecutrix was a minor.