The evidentiary value of documents to prove the age of the prosecutrix and the requirement to establish the age beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 70/2000 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix (PW-1) who was aged about 16 years at the time of the incident i.e. 29.03.2000 and is the daughter of Ramsukh (PW-6) and niece of Ramsahay (PW-2), she went outside of the house without telling anyone in the house. Appellant Manohar Sahu, a resident of the same village Kodka, also was not present at his house on the same day, then the uncle of the prosecutrix, Ramsahay (PW-2) on 29.03.2000 gave information to the police. On 30.03.2000, her father produced the prosecutrix before the police and told that the appellant had seduced her daughter and taken her with him for wrong work, on which recovery panchnama vide Ex.P/6 was prepared and on the same day i.e. 30.03.2000, FIR vide Ex.P/4 was lodged against the appellant and after completing the due investigation, the final report was presented.

3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and brought on record 6 documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and did not bring any document in his support either.

4. Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahre, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove that the age of the prosecutrix was less than 18 years at the time of the incident. The documents produced by the prosecution and the basis for entry of the date of birth of the prosecutrix in the school's Dakhil-Kharij register are not clear. The father of the prosecutrix has failed to state exact date of birth of the prosecutrix. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age on the date of the alleged incident. The trial court has considered the prosecutrix as a consenting party. Thus, the case against the appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of principles of benefit of doubt and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, learned State counsel, would submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

7. On the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), friend of the prosecutrix, Sunita Sahu (PW-5), uncle of the prosecutrix, Ramsahay (PW-2) and father of the prosecutrix, Ramsukh (PW-6), the trial court has found that the prosecutrix had left the house on her own will and she was not seduced by the appellant in any way and the prosecutrix has been considered to be a consenting party and this finding has not been challenged by the prosecution. There is no fact on record to the contrary, hence the conclusion of the trial court is justified that the prosecutrix was not seduced by the appellant and she was a consenting party.

8. Now the main question to be considered is whether the age of the prosecutrix was less than 18