State v. Akash alias Kallu Pandey and another) arising out of Case Crime No

6:00 pm in the evening, complainant/appellant alongwith his wife Smt. Jashoda had gone to Thakur Baba, Devsthal- Temple. His eldest daughter Ms. Bhavna and youngest daughter Ms. Sanjivani had gone to the fields to attend the call of nature while his son, Raja Singh, was sitting near the under-construction house of his brother Charandas. His daughter/ victim being unable to withstand harassment and molestation by the three individuals, committed suicide by hanging herself on the fateful day which is 8.6.2018. When his daughters came back to the house at about 6:45 pm, they found that the door was locked from inside. Both of them knocked the door and called the victim, but the door was not opened. Then his son Raja Singh also came there, but the door was not opened. Thereafter his son Raja Singh with the help of Nasaini (ladder) climbed to the roof of the house of Charandas, and and then came to the roof top of his house. To his utter dismay he saw that the victim was hanging with a rope. His son Raja Singh and his sisters Bhavna entered the house thereafter and opened the door. When the complainant and his wife were returning from Thakur Baba, one Chaukidar Mitthu told them on the way that there was screaming in their house. By the time, they arrived at their house, his daughters and son Raja Singh with the help of other family members had taken down his daughter hoping that she might still be alive. He and his family members then took the victim to Medical College, Jhansi, but on the way, the victim's body became completely cold and then he returned with the body of the victim to his village. Thereafter an application was submitted by the first informant/ appellant at Police Station Badagaon for getting the Panchayatnama and post-mortem of the body of deceased.

5. The inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of the deceased was got conducted by the police. Thereafter post mortem of the body of the victim was conducted on 9.6.2018. 3 NC413 No. 571 of 2025

6. Thereafter, the first informant enquired from the family members how his daughter had died. His eldest daughter Bhavana and his wife Jashoda, disclosed that the victim had been harassed and molested by Sachin Pandey, Akash @ Kallu Pandey and their relative Ankit Mishra for a long time forcing her to commit suicide. After performing the last rites of his daughter, the complainant approached police station Badagaon on

13.6.2018 to register an FIR, but no case was registered against accused. He thereafter moved an application on 11.7.2018 to S.S.P., Jhansi through registered post and finally when no action was taken he filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was allowed. Accordingly, on 17.8.2018, Case Crime No. 139(150) of 2018, under Sections 306, 354 IPC, Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act and Section 11/12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, was registered at Police Station- Badagaon, District Jhansi.

7. After finding no involvement of main accused Sachin Pandey during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer separated his name from investigation. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused Akash @ Kallu Pandey and Ankit Mishra, opposite parties 2 and 3 herein. Charges were framed against them under Sections 306, 354 IPC, Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act and Section 11/12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

8. In order to prove it's case, prosecution adduced PW-1 Sri Matadeen (informant & father of the deceased), PW-2 Smt. Jashoda (wife of informant), PW-3 Smt. Bhavna (daughter of informant & elder sister of deceased), PW-4 H.C. Atul Kumar Mishra (scribe of chik F.I.R.) PW-5 Dr. R.K. Saxena (autopsy surgeon), PW-6 Dr. Rashmi Singh Kushwaha, (autopsy surgeon, who had conducted medical examination of private parts of the deceased) PW-7 Sri Devendra Singh (I.O.) and PW-8 Sri Sangram Singh (IInd I.O.). The witnesses examined by the prosecution have given their respective oral evidence and also proved 07 prosecution papers, namely Panchayatnama as Ext.Ka-1, application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as Ext. Ka-2, FIR as Ext. Ka-3, G.D. Entry as Ext. Ka-4, Post mortem as Ext. Ka-5, Site plan as Ext. Ka-6 and Charge-sheet as Ext. Ka-

7. The prosecution also produced viscera report before Court below as paper no. 104A/3 and FSL report as paper no. 104A/5. 4 NC413 No. 571 of 2025

9. In statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused/ opposite parties 2 and 3 denied the prosecution version of the occurrence and stated that they have been falsely implicated. The victim has committed suicide as a result of being beaten by the complainant/ appellant. The defence got examined DW-1 Aaram Singh to prove their innocence.

10. Ultimately by means of the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, court below has acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 306, 354 IPC, Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act and Section 11/12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Feeling aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been preferred by informant-appellant.

11. Learned counsel for appellant submits that court below has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused- opposite parties 2 and 3. The prosecution has proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt. There was sufficient medical and oral evidence on record in support of the prosecution case for conviction of opposite parties 2 and 3. Court below has failed to exercise it's jurisdiction with due diligence resulting in misreading of the prosecution evidence. As such, the judgement rendered by Court below suffers from the vice of perversity. It was then vehemently urged by the learned counsel for appellant that trial court while initiating proceedings under section 383 BNSS against the informant- appellant, has simultaneously directed the SHO, P.S. Badagaon, Jhansi to register an FIR against the informant -appellant and his family members for committing murder of the deceased, which direction is stated to be against law and facts available on record. The prosecution story may succeed or fail in the trial. But in case of failure, the prosecution cannot be said to be guilty of initiating a false case. Therefore, it has been urged by the learned counsel for appellant that direction nos. 5 and 6 contained in the order dated 26.8.2025 of the impugned judgement are also liable to be set aside.

12. Learned A.G.A. for State respondent has vehemently opposed the present appeal. According to the learned A.G.A., court below has correctly appreciated the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses of fact and has rightly come to the conclusion that their testimonies are not reliable. None of the witnesses of fact i.e. informant, his wife and his 5 NC413 No. 571 of 2025 daughter have supported the prosecution story specifically against accused/opposite party-2 -Ankit Mishra. Therefore, no case can be said to be made out against Ankit Mishra. The findings of trial court regarding absence of evidence of harassment and molestation of deceased at the hands of opposite parties 2 and 3 are supported by evidence available on record. Thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused persons. Lastly, it has been urged that no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order is made out. Learned A.G.A. thus urged for dismissal of present appeal.

13. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as the learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

14. After appreciating the ocular as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and after recording the following findings court below has acquitted the accused persons, by means of the impugned judgement. (I) The prosecution has failed to prove that victim was minor at the time of incident. (II) PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have denied the prosecution story qua accused Ankit Mishra in their cross examinations, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of accused Ankit Mishra in the alleged incident. (III) The informant has failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. (IV) Inspite of presence of independent witnesses on the spot, the prosecution has examined only the family members of the deceased. The said witnesses have also not seen the incident and there was no consistency in their testimonies, resulting in an adverse effect on the prosecution story. (V) The deceased was found dead inside the house of the appellant with a total of six visible ante-mortem injuries including one ligature mark. The prosecution has failed to explain 05 other visible ante-mortem injuries found on the neck and elbow of the deceased other than ligature mark. The prosecution has also failed to explain how all the clothes including undergarments of the deceased were torn. The prosecution has also failed 6 NC413 No. 571 of 2025 to explain how human blood was found on Salwar, Kurta/ Top and Bra of the deceased. Resultantly, the trial court found that the deceased was actually murdered by the family members of the deceased, that is why they have concealed above facts. (VI) The prosecution has failed to prove any incident of harassment and / or molestation of the victim at the hands of the accused prior to the death of the deceased.

15. While considering the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if two views are possible, one supporting the acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Reference in this regard be made to the judgement of Supreme Court in Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibhai and others vs. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 602, which is most appropriately applicable to the facts of the present case. Paragraph 9 of the report is relevant for the controversy in hand and is accordingly reproduced herein-below:- "Law is now well settled that though the CrPC does not make any distinction between the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an order of conviction or of acquittal, normally the Appellate Court does not disturb an order of acquittal in a case where two views of the evidence are reasonably possible. But the above principle is not applicable where the approach of the trial judge in dealing with the evidence is manifestly erroneous and the conclusions drawn are wholly unreasonable and perverse. In the instant case we find that the High Court was fully conscious, and did not transgress the bounds, of its appellate powers while dealing and reversing the order of acquittal"

16. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Supreme Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561, has observed as under:- "39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be 7 NC413 No. 571 of 2025 exercised within the four corners of the following principles:- (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."

17. It has also been observed in above-mentioned judgment that an Appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. It has also been observed that the Apex Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.

18. Perusal of the impugned judgement in the light of above noted well settled legal position reveals that the trial court in order to evaluate prosecution case in the light of evidence on record framed 03 points of determination.

19. The point of determination no. 1 was with regard to the minority of victim. The trial court has relied upon the judgements of Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh vs. Rajanikant, AIR 2010 SC 2933, Satpal Singh vs. State of Haryana (2010) 8 SCC 714 and Brij Mohan vs. Priyabrat Narayan Sinha and another, AIR 1965 SC 282 as well as provision of Rule 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) 8 NC413 No. 571 of 2025 Rules, 2016 in order to determine juvenility of victim. In the facts of the present case, the victim was found to have passed class 8th from Junior High School, Madora and in her progress report of class 8th, her date of birth was recorded as 9.6.2002. The informant stated nothing regarding when the victim was admitted in class-1 and in which school. The first informant also failed to disclose what documentary evidence was produced by him regarding date of birth of the victim at the time of admission. No educational certificate of victim was produced in the trial court regarding school first attended by her. The prosecution also failed to prove the said progress report. By evaluating the evidence of informant/ appellant as PW-1 and his wife as PW-2 in the light of above facts, court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the victim was minor at the time of incident. The findings recorded by the trial court in para-36 to 41 of the judgement have been carefully perused by us and we do not find any error in the approach of the trial court in deciding the point of determination no. 1.

20. We may add that the Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263, in paragraph 23 has clearly held that the age of prosecutrix/victim/ child under the POCSO Act can be determined only in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice( Care and Protection) of Children Rules, 2007. However, as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2000 has now been repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2015, therefore, the age of the prosecutrix/victim/ child under the POCSO Act can now be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 94 of the Act of 2015. The judgment in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) has been reaffirmed in (i) Mahadev

6:00 pm in the evening, complainant/appellant alongwith his wife Smt. Jashoda had gone to Thakur Baba, Devsthal- Temple. His eldest daughter Ms. Bhavna and youngest daughter Ms. Sanjivani had gone to the fields to attend the call of nature while his son, Raja Singh, was sitting near the under-construction house of his brother Charandas. His daughter/ victim being unable to withstand harassment and molestation by the three individuals, committed suicide by hanging herself on the fateful day which is 8.6.2018. When his daughters came back to the house at about 6:45 pm, they found that the door was locked from inside. Both of them knocked the door and called the victim, but the door was not opened. Then his son Raja Singh also came there, but the door was not opened. Thereafter his son Raja Singh with the help of Nasaini (ladder) climbed to the roof of the house of Charandas, and and then came to the roof top of his house. To his utter dismay he saw that the victim was hanging with a rope. His son Raja Singh and his sisters Bhavna entered the house thereafter and opened the door. When the complainant and his wife were returning from Thakur Baba, one Chaukidar Mitthu told them on the way that there was screaming in their house. By the time, they arrived at their house, his daughters and son Raja Singh with the help of other family members had taken down his daughter hoping that she might still be alive. He and his family members then took the victim to Medical College, Jhansi, but on the way, the victim's body became completely cold and then he returned with the body of the victim to his village. Thereafter an application was submitted by the first informant/ appellant at Police Station Badagaon for getting the Panchayatnama and post-mortem of the body of deceased.

5. The inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of the deceased was got conducted by the police. Thereafter post mortem of the body of the victim was conducted on 9.6.2018. 3 NC413 No. 571 of 2025

6. Thereafter, the first informant enquired from the family members how his daughter had died. His eldest daughter Bhavana and his wife Jashoda, disclosed that the victim had been harassed and molested by Sachin Pandey, Akash @ Kallu Pandey and their relative Ankit Mishra for a long time forcing her to commit suicide. After performing the last rites of his daughter, the complainant approached police station Badagaon on

13.6.2018 to register an FIR, but no case was registered against accused. He thereafter moved an application on 11.7.2018 to S.S.P., Jhansi through registered post and finally when no action was taken he filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was allowed. Accordingly, on 17.8.2018, Case Crime No. 139(150) of 2018, under Sections 306, 354 IPC, Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act and Section 11/12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, was registered at Police Station- Badagaon, District Jhansi.

7. After finding no involvement of main accused Sachin Pandey during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer separated his name from investigation. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused Akash @ Kallu Pandey and Ankit Mishra, opposite parties 2 and 3 herein. Charges were framed against them under Sections 306, 354 IPC, Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act and Section 11/12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

8. In order to prove it's case, prosecution adduced PW-1 Sri Matadeen (informant & father of the deceased), PW-2 Smt. Jashoda (wife of informant), PW-3 Smt. Bhavna (daughter of informant & elder sister of deceased), PW-4 H.C. Atul Kumar Mishra (scribe of chik F.I.R.) PW-5 Dr. R.K. Saxena (autopsy surgeon), PW-6 Dr. Rashmi Singh Kushwaha, (autopsy surgeon, who had conducted medical examination of private parts of the deceased) PW-7 Sri Devendra Singh (I.O.) and PW-8 Sri Sangram Singh (IInd I.O.). The witnesses examined by the prosecution have given their respective oral evidence and also proved 07 prosecution papers, namely Panchayatnama as Ext.Ka-1, application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as Ext. Ka-2, FIR as Ext. Ka-3, G.D. Entry as Ext. Ka-4, Post mortem as Ext. Ka-5, Site plan as Ext. Ka-6 and Charge-sheet as Ext. Ka-

7. The prosecution also produced viscera report before Court below as paper no. 104A/3 and FSL report as paper no. 104A/5. 4 NC413 No. 571 of 2025

9. In statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused/ opposite parties 2 and 3 denied the prosecution version of the occurrence and stated that they have been falsely implicated. The victim has committed suicide as a result of being beaten by the complainant/ appellant. The defence got examined DW-1 Aaram Singh to prove their innocence.

10. Ultimately by means of the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2025, court below has acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 306, 354 IPC, Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act and Section 11/12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Feeling aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been preferred by informant-appellant.

11. Learned counsel for appellant submits that court below has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused- opposite parties 2 and 3. The prosecution has proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt. There was sufficient medical and oral evidence on record in support of the prosecution case for conviction of opposite parties 2 and 3. Court below has failed to exercise it's jurisdiction with due diligence resulting in misreading of the prosecution evidence. As such, the judgement rendered by Court below suffers from the vice of perversity. It was then vehemently urged by the learned counsel for appellant that trial court while initiating proceedings under section 383 BNSS against the informant- appellant, has simultaneously directed the SHO, P.S. Badagaon, Jhansi to register an FIR against the informant -appellant and his family members for committing murder of the deceased, which direction is stated to be against law and facts available on record. The prosecution story may succeed or fail in the trial. But in case of failure, the prosecution cannot be said to be guilty of initiating a false case. Therefore, it has been urged by the learned counsel for appellant that direction nos. 5 and 6 contained in the order dated 26.8.2025 of the impugned judgement are also liable to be set aside.

12. Learned A.G.A. for State respondent has vehemently opposed the present appeal. According to the learned A.G.A., court below has correctly appreciated the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses of fact and has rightly come to the conclusion that their testimonies are not reliable. None of the witnesses of fact i.e. informant, his wife and his 5 NC413 No. 571 of 2025 daughter have supported the prosecution story specifically against accused/opposite party-2 -Ankit Mishra. Therefore, no case can be said to be made out against Ankit Mishra. The findings of trial court regarding absence of evidence of harassment and molestation of deceased at the hands of opposite parties 2 and 3 are supported by evidence available on record. Thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused persons. Lastly, it has been urged that no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order is made out. Learned A.G.A. thus urged for dismissal of present appeal.

13. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as the learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

14. After appreciating the ocular as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and after recording the following findings court below has acquitted the accused persons, by means of the impugned judgement. (I) The prosecution has failed to prove that victim was minor at the time of incident. (II) PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have denied the prosecution story qua accused Ankit Mishra in their cross examinations, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of accused Ankit Mishra in the alleged incident. (III) The informant has failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. (IV) Inspite of presence of independent witnesses on the spot, the prosecution has examined only the family members of the deceased. The said witnesses have also not seen the incident and there was no consistency in their testimonies, resulting in an adverse effect on the prosecution story. (V) The deceased was found dead inside the house of the appellant with a total of six visible ante-mortem injuries including one ligature mark. The prosecution has failed to explain 05 other visible ante-mortem injuries found on the neck and elbow of the deceased other than ligature mark. The prosecution has also failed to explain how all the clothes including undergarments of the deceased were torn. The prosecution has also failed 6 NC413 No. 571 of 2025 to explain how human blood was found on Salwar, Kurta/ Top and Bra of the deceased. Resultantly, the trial court found that the deceased was actually murdered by the family members of the deceased, that is why they have concealed above facts. (VI) The prosecution has failed to prove any incident of harassment and / or molestation of the victim at the hands of the accused prior to the death of the deceased.

15. While considering the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if two views are possible, one supporting the acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Reference in this regard be made to the judgement of Supreme Court in Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibhai and others vs. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 602, which is most appropriately applicable to the facts of the present case. Paragraph 9 of the report is relevant for the controversy in hand and is accordingly reproduced herein-below:- "Law is now well settled that though the CrPC does not make any distinction between the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an order of conviction or of acquittal, normally the Appellate Court does not disturb an order of acquittal in a case where two views of the evidence are reasonably possible. But the above principle is not applicable where the approach of the trial judge in dealing with the evidence is manifestly erroneous and the conclusions drawn are wholly unreasonable and perverse. In the instant case we find that the High Court was fully conscious, and did not transgress the bounds, of its appellate powers while dealing and reversing the order of acquittal"

16. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Supreme Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561, has observed as under:- "39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be 7 NC413 No. 571 of 2025 exercised within the four corners of the following principles:- (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."

17. It has also been observed in above-mentioned judgment that an Appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. It has also been observed that the Apex Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.

18. Perusal of the impugned judgement in the light of above noted well settled legal position reveals that the trial court in order to evaluate prosecution case in the light of evidence on record framed 03 points of determination.

19. The point of determination no. 1 was with regard to the minority of victim. The trial court has relied upon the judgements of Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh vs. Rajanikant, AIR 2010 SC 2933, Satpal Singh vs. State of Haryana (2010) 8 SCC 714 and Brij Mohan vs. Priyabrat Narayan Sinha and another, AIR 1965 SC 282 as well as provision of Rule 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) 8 NC413 No. 571 of 2025 Rules, 2016 in order to determine juvenility of victim. In the facts of the present case, the victim was found to have passed class 8th from Junior High School, Madora and in her progress report of class 8th, her date of birth was recorded as 9.6.2002. The informant stated nothing regarding when the victim was admitted in class-1 and in which school. The first informant also failed to disclose what documentary evidence was produced by him regarding date of birth of the victim at the time of admission. No educational certificate of victim was produced in the trial court regarding school first attended by her. The prosecution also failed to prove the said progress report. By evaluating the evidence of informant/ appellant as PW-1 and his wife as PW-2 in the light of above facts, court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the victim was minor at the time of incident. The findings recorded by the trial court in para-36 to 41 of the judgement have been carefully perused by us and we do not find any error in the approach of the trial court in deciding the point of determination no. 1.

20. We may add that the Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263, in paragraph 23 has clearly held that the age of prosecutrix/victim/ child under the POCSO Act can be determined only in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice( Care and Protection) of Children Rules, 2007. However, as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2000 has now been repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2015, therefore, the age of the prosecutrix/victim/ child under the POCSO Act can now be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 94 of the Act of 2015. The judgment in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) has been reaffirmed in (i) Mahadev