P.K. Musahary, J.

1. Heard Mr. L. Tenzing, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused appellant. Also heard Mr. I. Basar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 rendered by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Namsai, in Sessions Case No. 02/2002 convicting the accused appellant under Section 366 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 years and 6 months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

The case of the prosecution, In brief, Is that on 23.01.2002, an FIR was lodged by PW-1 of village Patirgaon to the effect that his 16 years and 3 months minor daughter (Tina' real name withheld) was missing since the afternoon of 18.01.2002 and It was reported that she had left her village in company of one Sanjiv Baidya (present appellant) of Chowkham. On the basis of the said FIR, the police registered Namsai P.S. Case No. 03/2002 under Section 366 I.P.C. On completion of the Investigation, the I.O. of the case submitted charge sheet against the accused appellant under Section 366 I.P.C. The case was committed to the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Namsai, for trial, as the alleged offence was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. On consideration of the materials on record, the learned trial court framed charge under Section 366A I.P.C. against the accused appellant, to which, on being read over and explained, he pleaded not guilty and demanded to stand the trial.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 7(seven) witnesses including the victim girl and the medical officer. The defence, on the other hand, examined 2(two) witnesses.

3. Mr. L. Tenzing, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused appellant submits that at the time of the incident, the age of the victim girl was above 18 years and she had accompanied the accused appellant voluntarily and thereafter, she had been staying and moving with him till she was recovered from his custody. Mr. Tenzing, Learned Counsel for the accused appellant, further submits that since the victim girl was above 18 years of age and was staying and moving with the accused appellant on her own volition, no case under Section 366 of I.P.C. is made out or proved against the accused appellant and as such, the accused appellant is entitled to acquittal.

4. Mr. I. Basar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh, submits that at the time of the incident, the victim girl 'Pina' was below the age of 18 years as per the Birth Certificate dated 20.09.2000 Issued by the Registrar, Registry of Death & Birth, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Namsal Circle, Lohit District, wherein the date of birth of the victim girl has been shown as 20.03.1985. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has shown the aforesaid certificate from the records of the case. According to him, the prosecution has been able to prove the age of the victim girl as below 18 years of age and thereby, proved its case, on the basis of which, the learned trial court rightly convicted the accused appellant, as stated above, calling for no Interference In appeal.

5. I have perused the said birth certificate shown by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. It is seen that it is merely a photocopy of the Birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Death & Birth, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Namsai Circle, Lohit Circle, without being accompanied by the original one. It is further seen that the said certificate was not proved by the prosecution before the learned trial court inasmuch as the same has not been marked as an Exhibit. In my considered view, such a document without being proved and/or exhibited before the trial court, cannot be treated as a valid piece of evidence and no finding, whatsoever, on the basis of such a document, can be recorded by the trial court, as regards the age of the victim girl. E