The authenticity of school documents and the reliability of medical evidence are crucial in age determination, and in the absence of cogent evidence on the date of birth, the court should rely on medical opinion.

1. - The petitioner has challenged the judgement dated 23.07.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3 Ajmer, Camp Kishangarh, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents No.2 to 5 of the charges under sections 363, 366, 376 and 120B IPC.

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 04.11.2001, the petitioner had lodged a report at Police Station Madanganj, Kishangarh, wherein he had claimed that on 22.10.2008 respondents No.2 to 5 had kidnapped his minor daughter, Gulshan. The police registered a FIR, FIR No.528/2008 for offences under sections 363 and 366 IPC. However, after Gulshan was recovered, offences under sections 376 and 120B IPC were added against respondents No.2, 3 and 4. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against respondents Nos.2 to 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and exhibited twenty seven documents. In defence, the accused did not examine any witness, but did exhibit a document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial judge, as mentioned above, acquitted the accused respondents No.2 to 5 of all the charges. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Neeraj K.Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that according to petitioner's testimony his daughter was a minor. Secondly, even if there is a conflict, within the prosecution evidence, with regard to age of the pro secutrix, the testimony of her parents, and the date of birth as reflected in the school certificate should be relied upon by the Court in order to determine the pro secutrix's age. According to the school certificate, the pro secutrix was, indeed, minor. In order to support his contention the learned counsel has relied upon Vishnu @ Undrya v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 ACJ 713 (SC) : 2006 (1) Criminal Court Cases 493 (SC) : 2006 (1) WLC (SC) Cri 103 : 2006 (1) SCC 283 and on State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan Hemant Janardhan Wankhede, 2009 (1) CCC 204 (SC) : 2008 (8) SCC 38 . He has further contended that in her testimony the prosecutrix has vividly described the gang-rape to which she was subjected. On the basis of her testimony, the learned trial Judge should have convicted the accused respondents.

4. On the other hand, Mrs. Alka Bhatnagar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously argued that the petitioner did not state in his testimony about the exact date of the prosecutrix's birth. He merely made a vague statement that on the date of occurrence the prosecutrix was 15 years and 6 months old. Secondly, the admission ticket of the prosecutrix (Ex.P21) shows that the person who declared her date of birth was one Manphool. However, Manphool was not examined by the prosecution. Thirdly, Bhanwar Lal Sharma PW14, the Principal of the school, has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he cannot state on what basis the said date was recorded in the admission ticket. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the prosecutrix's actual date of birth. Fourthly, in absence of cogent evidence on this point, the only other evidence upon which the learned trial judge could have relied, would be the medical evidence. According to Dr.Sheela Rani PW3, the Radiologist, who had carried out the examination for age of the prosecutrix, the pro secutrix was between 18-19 years on 22.12.2008. The said testimony has been corroborated further by the testimony of Dr.Hemendra Bhaktani PW4. Therefore, on the basis of testimony of both the doctors, the learned trial court was justified in holding that the pro secutrix was major on the date of occurrence. Fifthly, the pro secutrix is not a witness of sterling worth, as she has exaggerated the facts of the case to the extent that they amount to contradictions. According to statements of the pro secutrix under section 161 Cr.P.C. Mahendra Sahu (respondent No.5) had taken her and had committed rape upon her. However, in her testimony in the Court, she further cl