The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving offences against minors.

This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 26-11-1993 of the Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The revision-petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No. 48/89 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottayam. He was charged with the offences punishable under sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences and convicted him. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under S. 363, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years under S. 376, IPC. The sentences were allowed to run concurrently.

2. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, the revision-petitioner preferred Cri. Appeal No. 50/90 before the Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge. Hence this revision.

3. The resume of the prosecution case is as follows :

P.W. 2, Sindhu, is the daughter of P.W. 1. Kumaran, who is a retired teacher. The accused was the neighbour of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 fell in love with the accused and on the night of 22-8-1988 the accused compelled her to have sexual union with him. On knowing the illicit intimacy of P.W. 2 with the accused, P.W. 2 was taken to the house of P.W. 3, the maternal uncle of P.W. 2 in the last week of April, 1989. Even thereafter there had been correspondence between P.W. 2 and the accused. P.W. 2 had sexual relationship with the accused on several times, as a result of which she became pregnant. The accused persuaded her to come to Kanjirappally to join him. Accordingly on 17-5-89 P.W. 2 went to Kanjirappally where the accused was waiting for her. The accused took her to Changanacherry and they resided there in the house of a friend of the accused. The accused and P.W. 2 entered into an agreement of marriage and got it registered in the Sub-Registrar's Office, Changanacherry. Since P.W. 2 was found missing, P.W. 1 went to Ranni Police Station and lodged Ext. P1 statement. P.W. 8, the then Head Constable attached to Ranni Police Station registered Crime No. 122/89 under Ext. P1(a) FIR. On coming to know that the police was in Search of P.W. 2 and the accused, they surrendered before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ranni, on 16-6-1989. The Sub-Inspector of Police sent the accused and P.W. 2 for medical examination. P.W. 4, the Assistant Surgeon attached to the District Hospital, Pathanamthitta, examined P.W. 2 on 16-6-1989 and issued Ext. P7 certificate. P.W. 4 also examined the accused and issued Ext. P9 potency certificate. As the offences were committed within the jurisdiction of Kanjirappally Police Station, P.W. 9 the Sub-Inspector transmitted the records relating to the case to Kanjirappally Police Station, where P.W. 10 registered Crime No. 94/89 of Kanjirappally Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376, IPC P.W. 11, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanjirappally, took up the investigation in the case. P.W. 12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanjirappally, laid the charge before the Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Kanjirappally, who committed the case to the Court of Session. The Sessions Judge made over the case to the Assistant Sessions Judge for trial and disposal.

4. The accused denied the charge. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 12 and marked Exts. P1 to P15. No defence evidence was adduced. Both the courts below found the accused guilty of the offences, convicted him and sentenced him as stated earlier.

5. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioner contended that the lower Courts have misunderstood and misappreciated the evidence in the case. According to him, the Courts below should have held that Ext. P2 has not been properly proved and the entry in the Register of Births and Deaths does not prove that it relates to P.W. 2. He further contended that the lower Court acte