JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376, 511, 363 and 366 as well as Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years and 7 years for the aforesaid offences alongwith fine with default stipulation.

3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

On 18.7.1999, the victim (PW10) boarded the bus to Shimla from Solan. When the bus bearing registration No. HP-12-4113 reached near petrol pump (HIMFED) situated near Nav Bahar towards Chotta Shimla, all the passengers got down, except the prosecutrix and accused-appellant Arjun Singh. Accused Arjun Singh committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will and without her consent. The victim was kidnapped by the accused who was minor at the time of kidnapping in bus No.HP-12-4113 from Solan. The accused had induced the prosecutrix that he would marry her after reaching Nalagarh. The FIR was registered. Thereafter the investigation was carried out and the challan was put in the Court. The appellant was charged for offences punishable under Sections 376, 511, 366 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove its case. The appellant had examined Shri Arvind Sharma (DW 1) as defence witness. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is to be noted that two persons faced trial for the aforesaid offences i.e. appellant who was the conductor of the vehicle, and one Daler Singh who was the driver of the vehicle. Since accused persons abjured guilt, trial was held. The trial court placed reliance on the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW1) and her mother (PW 3). As a plea relating to the age of the prosecutrix to show that she was a consenting party was taken, the person who had issued the date of birth certificate was examined as PW 4. According to the said certificate the date of birth was 19th October, 1984. She was admitted to the school on 1st April, 1997 and had left it on 24th October, 1998. The trial Court held that the age of the victim was less than 16 years and placed reliance on the documents produced. It was also submitted by the accused persons that no rape has been committed. This plea also was rejected by the trial court.

Accordingly the trial court while holding the appellant guilty, acquitted co-accused. As noted above, appeal before the High Court was dismissed.

4. In support of the appeal the stand taken before the trial court and the High Court were reiterated.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment of the High Court.

6. So far as the age aspect is concerned in Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra [2006(1) SCC 283] it was inter alia held as follows:

"20. It is urged before us by Mr Lalit that the determination of the age of the prosecutrix by conducting ossification test is scientifically proved and, therefore, the opinion of the doctor that the girl was of 18-19 years of age should be accepted. We are unable to accept this contention for the reasons that the expert medical evidence is not binding on the ocular evidence. The opinion of the Medical Officer is to assist the court as he is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the Medical Officer is really of an advisory character and not binding on the witness of fact."

7. In State of Chhattisgarh v. Lekhram [2006(5) SCC 736] it was held that the register maintained in a school is admissible evidence to prove the date of birth of the person concerned in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short `Evidence Act'). It may be true that in the entry of the school register is not conclusive but it has evidentiary