Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20949 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 409 of 2025 Revisionist :- Prashant Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affirs Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra,Arvind .Ku.Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 2. By means of the present revision filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. along with Section 102 of Juvenile Justice Act, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2019; State vs. Prashant Mishra and others, arising out of Case Crime No.108 of 2018, under Sections 376D, 506 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Raje Sultanpur, District Ambdekar Nagar. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the FIR was lodged against the revisionist on 18.06.2018 alleging that on 06.12.2017 while the prosecutrix was returning from the field the accused had taken her away and forcibly committed sexual assault on her. After she made hue and cry, the accused ran away and later on when she told her mother about the incident, she was six months' pregnant. It was also alleged that the accused had threatened not to disclose the said incident. During trial charges were framed against the revisionist under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act apart from the other sections. After the evidence of the prosecutrix was concluded, an application was given by the prosecution under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of the charge which was previously framed under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act to under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. The said application became necessary considering the statement of prosecutrix who during the examination in chief had disclosed that both the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on her and consequently the trial court was of the view that in light of the said statement, an offence under Section 5 (g) of POCSO Act was made out. 4. Objection was raised by the revisionist before the trial court to the application preferred by the prosecution. The main ground for objecting to the said application was the fact that the prosecutrix, according to the revisionist, was not a minor on the date of incident inasmuch as her date of birth was 19.06.1999 as per primary school Tandawa Jalalpur. He had also submitted a copy of Aadhar Card, according to which the prosecutrix was major on the date of incident. On behalf of the prosecution, the certificate of Chit Bahal Aadarsh Balika Inter College, Pooranpur Ambedkar Nagar was filed indicating her date of birth to be 01.04.2001 and according to the prosecution the prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident. Even during her examination in chief, the prosecutrix had disclosed her age to be 17 years. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the trial court was of the view that considering the statement of examination in chief of the prosecutrix an offence under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act was disclosed and accordingly an appropriate charge under the said section ought to be framed and allowed the application of the prosecution. 5. The emphasis of the revisionist in the present case is only with regard to the age of the prosecutrix. According to the revisionist, the prosecutrix was major on the date of incident and accordingly no charge under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act should have been framed and accordingly assailed the impugned order dated 20.03.2025. 6. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the revision. He has submitted that the age of prosecutrix was never an issue before the trial court at the stage of framing of charge and in the present case the application was limited under the provision of Section 216 Cr.P.C. which pertained to alteration of charge. It is stated that after examination in chief of the prosecutrix was over, it was clear from her statement that firstly she had claimed minority inasmuch as she claimed her age to be 17 years and secondly she had stated that penetrative sexual assault was committed upon her by two accused and consequently a bare reading of Section 5 (g) of POCSO Act would indicate that conditions for framing of charge were available on record and accordingly submits that no interference is called for in the present case. 7. I have heard the rival contentions raised by the revisionist and perused the record. 8. Considering the arguments of the revisionist that the prosecutrix was major on the date of incident and accordingly no charge under the POCSO Act could have been framed is misconceived. The perusal of the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 would indicate that the trial court had duly recorded the contentions raised on behalf of the accused as well as the prosecution. According to the accused, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 19.06.1999 as per primary school Tandawa Jalalpur while the prosecution had submitted her certificate issued from Chit Bahal Aadarsh Balika Inter College, Pooranpur Ambedkar Nagar along with Register to prove her age to be 01.04.2001 and contended that she was minor. The trial court at this stage had clearly stated in the impugned order that at this stage it was not considering the age of the prosecutrix inasmuch the same would be considered in accordance with law after the parties have adduced adequate evidence but only considered the fact that charge under Section 3/4 POCSO Act deserves to be altered to 5/6 of POCSO Act considering the fact that allegation of gang rape was evident from the testimony of the prosecutrix. 9. I have perused the statement of prosecutrix which has been annexed along with revision and find that the prosecutrix has levelled charge of sexual assault on both the accused and consequently provisions of Section 5 (g) of POCSO Act are clearly attracted. Once as per statement the provisions of Section 5 are attracted she no reason as to why in exercise of power granted under Section 216 Cr.P.C. the charge could not have been altered. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial court altering the charge from under Section 3/4 to 5/6 of POCSO Act considering that adequate material is available on record. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any ground for interference in the impugned order. 11. The revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Renu/- (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench