Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 376(2)(i)(n) & 506 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act—Rape of minor—Life imprisonment—Appeal—Provisions of JJ Act may be followed by the Special Court for determination of age—Proposition “mere production and marking of a document does not amount to proof” holds good in respect of private documents only, and the same view cannot be taken in respect of proof of public documents—Extract of school admission register issued by the headmaster of school does not fall short of evidentiary value and it can be very much acted upon—Just because this document was collected during investigation, it cannot be said that it attracts rigor of Section 162 of the CrPC—Questionnaire shows that the attention of the accused was brought to actual incriminatory evidence against him—Merely because a question in regard to age of victim only was not put to the accused, by that itself it cannot be said that the trial is vitiated and judgment of conviction is bad—DNA test conducted during investigation confirmed that the accused was the father of the baby born to victim—In view of a clear case being made out for conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, it is not necessary to record conviction under Section 376(2)(i) and (n) of IPC—Sentence imposed is disproportionate in as much the Special Court has failed to assign reasons for imposing maximum sentence of life imprisonment—Judgment of trial court convicting the accused for offence under Section 6 read with Section 5(j)(ii)(I) of the POCSO Act is confirmed—Accused is acquitted of offence under Section 506 of IPC—Sentence imposed by the trial court for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is modified, he is sentence to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of rupees twenty five thousand with default stipulation—Appeal allowed in part. [Evidence Act, 1872, Section 35, 74, 77, 114]
[Paras 10, 22 to 24, 27, 29 to 31]