The judgment establishes the importance of corroborative evidence in rape cases, the conclusive proof of age from school registers, and the legal principles of consent in the context of sexual assault.

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.

1. This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence entered against the appellant in Sessions Case No. 84 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Quilon. The accused was tried for the offence punishable under S.376 of the Indian Penal Code He was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years.

2. PW 1, Geetha, is the daughter of PWs 6 and 7. According to the prosecution, PW 1 was 16 years old at the time of the incident. On the date of occurrence PW 1 alone was in the house. PWs 6 and 7 had gone for doing coolie work. The elder and the younger sisters of PW 1 were not in the house. In the morning she went to Punalur market and purchased some fish and other household articles. After coming home she was preparing food in the kitchen. According to PW 1 accused Babu came from behind and caught hold of her. The accused dragged PW 1 to the southern side of the room and there she was made to lie on the floor. The blouse hooks were forcibly loosened Her skirt and other clothes were tucked upto her waistline and the accused committed rape on her. According to PW 1 she resisted the assault, but she was not in a position to move. She felt pain over her abdomen and private parts. After this incident she went to a nearby shop, from where her parents used to purchase household articles. By about evening PWs 6 and 7 came, PW 2 also was present. PWs 6 and 7 took PW 1 to the police station, where she gave Ext. P1 statement. MOs 1, 3, 4 and 5 were given to the police.

3. A case was registered against the accused under S.376 I. P. C. PW 16 took over the investigation. He recovered the wearing apparels of the prosecutrix under Ext. P6 mahazar. She was sent for medical examination. PW 16 also prepared a scene mahazar. He recovered a blouse and 4 blouse hooks from the scene of occurrence under Ext. P5 mahazar. MO2 series are the blouse hooks. The accused was arrested by PW 16. The clothes alleged to have been worn by the accused at the time of incident were also taken into custody as per Ext. P7 mahazar. The accused was examined by a doctor. Ext. P10 is the certificate in that regards.

4. On the side of the prosecution PWs 1 to 16 were examined. PW 1 is the prosecutrix. PWs 2 and 3 are the neighbours who had seen the accused on that day. PW 4 examined PW 1 and issued Ext P2 medical certificate. PW 5 examined the accused. PWs6 and 7 are the parents of PW 1. PWs.9, 10, 11 attested Exts. P5, to P7 mahazar respectively. PW 14, 15 and 16 are the police officers, who participated in the investigation of the crime. The accused when questioned under S.313-C. R.P. C. completely denied his involvement in the crime. According to him, he was not present anywhere near the scene of occurrence. DW1 was. examined on the side of the accused. DW1 is the elder sister of PW 1. DW1 deposed that on 1st March, 1988 she alone was in the house and PW 1 had gone out along with their parents. The court below disbelieved the evidence of DW1 and found that the accused had committed rape on PW 1.

5. The mainstay of the prosecution case is the evidence of PW 1 and the medical evidence. The prosecution case is that PW 1 was only 16 years old at the time of the commission of the act. However the prosecution could not adduce any satisfactory evidence to prove that PW 1 was only a sixteen year old girl. PW 16, the Sub Inspector did not take any serious steps to find out the age of PW 1. PW 1 had studied upto 4th standard. This fact was made known to PW 16. He deposed that he made some enquiries in this direction. He further deposed that he was told by the Headmaster of the school that PW 1 was not a student in the school. PW 16 did not verify the school register. This amounts to dereliction of duty. It may be remembered that the Supreme Court in S. Ganguly v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1958 SC 143) held that the extract of school register is a conclusive proof to show the age of the victim. The