Per Rajnesh Oswal J.

1. This instant criminal acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/U.T of J&K-appellant against the judgment dated 27.08.2014 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) by virtue of which, the respondent has been acquitted of the charges under sections 363 and 376 RPC arising out of FIR bearing No. 156/2010 of Police Station, Satwari, District Jammu.

2. The instant appeal has been filed on the grounds that there is sufficient material on record to convict the respondent and the prosecution has established the case against the respondent by adducing documentary as well as oral evidence, that is sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent. It is further stated that the learned trial court has taken hyper technical approach while considering the date of birth of the appellant, as such, the judgment impugned is bad in the eye of law.

3. The brief facts those are necessary of the disposal of the present appeal are that on 18.09.2010, a written report lodged by Janak Raj, the father of the minor prosecutrix at Police Station Satwari that that his daughter, student of 8th Class, aged 15 years went missing yesterday. He made a search of his daughter but no clue was found, however, after inquiry, he came to know that his daughter had been enticed by the respondent herein, who kidnapped her and took her to unknown place. After the aforesaid report, the Police registered the FIR against the accused for commission of offence under section 363 RPC and investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer visited the spot from where prosecutrix was kidnapped and prepared a site plan and recorded the statement of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. The date of birth of the prosecutrix was also obtained from the Government Middle School, Sure Chak and as per said certificate, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 15.07.1997.

4. The respondent was arrested on 22.11.2010 and at that time, the prosecutrix was with him and thereafter, the medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by the Police and after that she handed over to her father. It came to fore from the investigation that the respondent took the prosecutrix to Punjab and other places and after enticing her, committed the forcible sexual intercourse for about two months. After the medical report, the prosecutrix was found carrying a pregnancy of 5/6 weeks. Her statement was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate.

5. After the completion of the investigation, the final report was filed by the Police against the respondent in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 27.12.2010 for commission of offences under sections 363 and 376 RPC and that was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge Jammu and was later on transferred to the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and was finally transferred to the trial court. The charges were framed by the learned trial court against the respondent for commission of aforesaid offences, to which the respondent did not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses.

6. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the respondent was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the truth of the prosecution evidence and stated that he had been implicated in a false case and he was innocent.

7. That the learned trial court after hearing both the parties, acquitted the respondent vide judgment impugned herein.

8. Mr. Assem Sawhney, learned AAG has vehemently argued that the judgment impugned is bad in the eye of law as the prosecutrix was minor and carrying the 5/6 weeks pregnancy at the time of her custody with the respondent. He further stated that as per school record produced by the Headmaster before the trial court, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was mentioned as 15.07.1997 and the trial court has wrongly rejected the documentary evidence