JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The two short questions involved in this criminal appeal are as follows :- I. Whether the appellant has suffered prejudice on account of the framing of charge by the trial Court stating that on 25/08/2022, the appellant has committed the offence in question and holding him guilty for committing the said offence on other dates as well ? II. Whether the copy of school attendance register obtained by the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is a public document and certified copy of a public document within the meaning of Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively ? 2. The aforesaid questions of law arise for consideration on the following factual backdrop :- (i) Case of the prosecution is that on 25/08/2022 at about 3 PM, the appellant herein, who was a Lecturer at Government High School, Kosmatra, Block and Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli, sexually assaulted minor victim, aged about 13 years (student of the said school), knowing fully well that she belonged to Scheduled Caste/Tribe and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC read with Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes/Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (ii) On the complaint of victim’s mother (PW-1), first information report was registered against the appellant vide Ex. P/2 and the matter was taken into investigation. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC vide Ex. P/7, spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/14, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Seizure of victim’s school admission receipt was made from the Principal vide Ex. P/10C. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences which was committed to the Court of Special Judge for trial in accordance with law. (iii) In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and brought on record 16 documents. The statement of the appellant was taken under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied guilt. In addition to this, on behalf of the appellant, a copy of the attendance register was filed which was obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter “RTI”) and plea of alibi was taken stating that on the date of offence i.e. 25/08/2022, the appellant was on casual leave. In addition to this, on behalf of the appellant, a copy of the attendance register was filed which was obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter “RTI”) and plea of alibi was taken stating that on the date of offence i.e. 25/08/2022, the appellant was on casual leave. (iv) However, the trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, rejected the plea of the appellant based on this unexhibited document holding that other than 25/08/2022, the appellant had also committed the offence on other dates as well and proceeded to convict him for the offence punishable under Sections 354 of IPC read with Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of non-payment of fine, further S.I. for 1 month. 3. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that on the date of offence i.e. 25/08/2022, the appellant was on casual leave which is proved by the Attendance Register obtained under the RTI and therefore, the question of commission of offence by him does not arise. Moreover, it is not the case of the prosecution that despite being on casual leave, the appellant attended the school on that day and committed the offence and since the charge levelled against the appellant is very specific and the date and time of offence is clearly mentioned, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court that other than 25/08/2022, the offence was also committed by the appellant on other dates as well is absolutely illegal and bad in law, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that an unexhibited document of prosecution can be made use of by the accused as per the decision rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of LalluSingh S/o JagdishSingh Samgar v. State of M.P. , 1996 MPLJ 452 as such, in the instant case a copy of the attendance register has been filed by the appellant which would show that he was on casual leave on the date of offence but it has not been relied upon, being an unexhibited document, and if the prosecution’s case was that the appellant had committed the offence on other dates as well, there ought to have been specific charge in this regard in light of Sections 211 and 221 of CrPC. The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Chittaranjan Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1696 and Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 1756 may be noticed profitably in this regard and the appellant be acquitted by granting the appeal. 4. Per contra, Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, would submit that though the charge against the appellant is specific but he was found guilty of commission of offence on other dates as well, therefore, the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant. Similarly, unexhibited document of defence cannot be taken into consideration and put to use of the accused, as such, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Answer to question No. 1 :- 6. The trial Court framed specific charge against the appellant herein, who is a Lecturer at Government High School, Kosmatra, Block and Teshil Lormi, District Mungeli, that on 25/08/2022, he sexually assaulted the minor victim aged below 18 years. However, in the impugned judgment, the trial Court has also recorded a finding at paragraph 43 that the appellant has also outraged the modesty of the victim on the dates other than 25/08/2022 as well. 7. It is the fundamental principle of criminal law that the accused should be informed with certainty and accuracy the exact nature of charge brought against him. Otherwise, he may be seriously prejudiced in his defence. 7. It is the fundamental principle of criminal law that the accused should be informed with certainty and accuracy the exact nature of charge brought against him. Otherwise, he may be seriously prejudiced in his defence. It is therefore, imperative that before a person is convicted of any offence, he should (subject to certain exceptions) be normally charged with having committed the offence specified and be given an opportunity to defend himself against such charge. He can be convicted only on proof of the particular offence so specified and not for offence not so specified. It is based on jurisprudential concept that ‘no man shall be condemned unheard’ and that ‘no man shall be prejudiced in his defence’. The act of order framing charge on the part of the trial Court must, therefore, be performed with seriousness of effort that it richly deserves and one must avoid the pitfall of routinely framing the charge without referring to the relevant statutes. 8. Sections 211 to 213 of CrPC deal with the contents and form of a charge and specify the particulars that should be stated in every charge. The object of such statement is to enable the accused person to know the substantive charge he will have to meet and to be ready for it before the evidence is recorded. Every charge must contain the following particulars :- (i) A statement of the offence with which the accused is charged, (ii) A statement of the law and the section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed, (iii) Particulars as to time and place of the alleged offence and the person against whom or the thing in respect of which it was committed, (iv) Particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed. This is, however, necessary only where the particulars mentioned in Sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter, with which he is charged. 9. The requirements of a valid charge has been explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chittaranjan Das (supra). This is, however, necessary only where the particulars mentioned in Sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter, with which he is charged. 9. The requirements of a valid charge has been explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chittaranjan Das (supra). Further, in the matter of Main Pal v. State of Haryana , (2010) 10 SCC 130 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that an accused should know what is the charge against him so that he can build his defence in regard to that charge and remitted the matter back to the trial Court after framing new charge. Paragraph 20 of the judgment states as under :- “20. When the accused is charged with having entered the house of Prakashi Devi and assaulted the said Prakashi Devi with intent to outrage her modesty and when the accused defended himself in regard to the said charge and concentrated on proving that the said charges were not true, he cannot be convicted for having assaulted and outraging the modesty of someone else, namely, Sheela Devi. The accused did not have any opportunity to meet or defend himself against the charge that he assaulted Sheela Devi and outraged her modesty. Nor did he proceed with his defence on the understanding that he was being charged with having committed the offence with reference to Sheela Devi. One of the fundamental principles of justice is that an accused should know what is the charge against him so that he can build his defence in regard to that charge. An accused cannot be punished for committing an offence against Y when he is charged with having committed the offence against X and the entire defence of the accused was with reference to charge of having committed offence against X. 10. Similarly, in the matter of Kalicharan v. State of UP, (2023) 2 SCC 583 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made observations regarding improper framing of charges and how the court of appeal would determine if the omission in framing charge led to failure of justice and observed in paragraph 19 as under :- “19. The emphasis is on giving details of the manner of committing offence. The emphasis is on giving details of the manner of committing offence. Unless the particulars such as specific section of the penal statute as well as the time and place of the commission of the alleged offence are incorporated in the charge, the accused will not be in a position to properly defend himself. Even these particulars may not be enough in many cases to enable the accused to properly defend himself. That is why there is a specific requirement incorporated in Section 213 that if the particulars mentioned in Sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose. Illustration (e) to Section 213 provides that when the charge contains an allegation that A is accused of the murder of B at a given time and place, the charge need not state the manner in which A murdered B.” 11. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is quite vivid that the trial Court has framed specific charge against the appellant that on 25/08/2022, he has outraged the modesty of the victim and no other dates have been mentioned while framing of charge and the question put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC is that whether he outraged the modesty of the victim on 25/08/2022, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the instant appeal, it has only to be seen whether on 25/08/2022, the appellant has outraged the modesty of the victim, as the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment has to be examined with reference to specific charge that on 25/08/2022, he has allegedly outraged the modesty of the victim. As such, question No. 1 is answered accordingly. Answer to question No. 2 :- 12. Before answering this question, facts of the case may be noticed herein. The appellant herein was a Lecturer at the Government High School, Kosmatra, Block Lormi, Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli on the date of offence. It is the case of the defence that on the date of offence i.e. 25/08/2022, he was on casual leave and did not attend duty, therefore, the question of committing the charged offence does not arise for consideration. It is the case of the defence that on the date of offence i.e. 25/08/2022, he was on casual leave and did not attend duty, therefore, the question of committing the charged offence does not arise for consideration. In this regard, he has filed a copy of teacher’s attendance register obtained under RTI on 31/10/2022, which was supplied by the Public Information Officer attached to the office of the District Education Officer, District Mungeli which shows that on 25/08/2022, the appellant was on casual leave. 13. In order to answer the plea raised at the Bar, certain provisions of the Evidence Act may be noticed herein. Section 74 of the Evidence Act, which deals with public documents, provides as under :- “ 74. Public Documents – The following documents are public documents :- (1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts- (i) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country; (2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents.” 14. The Government High School, Kosmatra, Block Lormi, Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli is a school maintained by District Education Officer, District Mungeli and is a functionary of the State Government. The school attendance register is not only maintained for the appellant, but also for all the other teachers/lecturers working in the School which is apparent from the document dated 31/10/2022 issued by the Public Information Officer of the Department. Therefore, the copy of the school attendance register would fall under the category of “public document” as defined in Section 74(1)(ii) of the Evidence Act being the official body. 15. Certified copy of the public document has been defined under Section 76 of the Act. It states as under:- “ 76. Certified copies of public documents. Therefore, the copy of the school attendance register would fall under the category of “public document” as defined in Section 74(1)(ii) of the Evidence Act being the official body. 15. Certified copy of the public document has been defined under Section 76 of the Act. It states as under:- “ 76. Certified copies of public documents. - Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.” 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Appaiya v. Andhimuthu, 2023 SCC Online SC 1183 has also considered the meaning of certified copy of public document and has held as under :- “22. Section 74 deals with documents which are public documents. Sub-section (2) thereof makes public records kept [in any State] of private documents within the purview of “public document” under Section 74. Going by Section 76, certified copies of public documents shall be given, on demand, by the public officer having the custody of public document, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title. Such copies so certified shall be called certified copies in terms of Section 76.” 17. Such copies so certified shall be called certified copies in terms of Section 76.” 17. In the matter of Khadim Ali v. Jagannath and Others , AIR 1941 Oudh 77 it has been held by Oudh High Court that the document purports to be a copy given by a public officer having custody of a public document but Section 76, Evidence Act, requires that such a copy should bear a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document and, in absence of which, the same would not be treated to be a certified copy/true document, more particularly, when it is not supported by the evidence of the person who prepared it. 18. Similarly, in the matter of Kishori Lal Roy v. Krishna Kishori Chaodhrani and Others , (1887) ILR 14P.C.486 it has been held by the Privy Council that in absence of certificate from the officer having custody of the document, a copy of it, cannot be called as “certified copy” to be admissible. 19. In light of the definition contained in Section 76 of the Evidence Act and in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Appaiya (supra), Kishori Lal Roy and Khadim Ali (supra), it is quite vivid that the copy supplied by the Public Information Officer on 31/10/2022 along with covering letter would show that it is the daily attendance register of the Government High School, District Mungeli where the appellant worked as a Lecturer. The said document only contains signature of the Public Information Officer and the Principal of the said school, however, there is no certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof which has not been mentioned and it has not been dated also and it is not even supported by the evidence of the person who prepared it, therefore, it would not fall under the category of certified copy of public document within the meaning of Section 76 of the Evidence Act. It was only a true copy/verified copy of a public document maintained by the school in control of the District Education Officer, Mungeli. Thus, this question is answered accordingly. 20. It was only a true copy/verified copy of a public document maintained by the school in control of the District Education Officer, Mungeli. Thus, this question is answered accordingly. 20. In conclusion, the charge that the appellant has outraged the modesty of the victim on 25/08/2022 is proved by the victim (PW-3) and her mother (PW-1) and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements in this regard and further, the defence of the appellant that he was on casual leave on 25/08/2022 could not be proved in accordance with law by the appellant by tendering document filed by him, as such, I do not find any force in the appeal. 21. This criminal appeal, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 22. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.