The probative value of entries in public records needs to be examined in light of contrary evidence, and their authenticity is crucial in determining their probative value.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. The State of Jammu & Kashmir (now UT of J&K) is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.10.2014 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua ["the trial Court"] in file No.08/Sessions titled State v. Rinku @ Gopal Dutt, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 376 RPC.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case set up in the Final Report is that the Police Station, Malhar Tehsil Billawar registered FIR No.30/2007 for offence under Section 376 RPC against the respondent on the basis of directions for investigation issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C on a complaint made by the maternal-grandfather of the prosecutrix, namely, PW-Masoo. The complainant, in his complaint, has alleged that the prosecutirx, his maternal grand daughter, about 10 years old, is living with him along with her mother, PW-Indro Devi, who has been divorced by her husband-Dewan Chand. It is further alleged that the respondent, by applying deceitful means, induced and lured the prosecutrix to marry with him. The prosecutrix fell prey to such inducement without understanding her good or bad and solemnized marriage with the respondent in the month of June, 2007. He alleges that the marriage was without the consent and knowledge and in the absence of her mother as also the complainant. After solemnizing marriage, respondent took the prosecutrix to fields belonging to the complainant twice in the month of July and August and had sexual intercourse with her against her consent. This happened within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Malhar Tehsil Billawar. The prosecutrix, who was in pain and suffering, hesitantly narrated the incident to her mother on 19.08.2007, who in turn reported the matter to her mother i.e. wife of the complainant. He, thus, complained that the respondent has committed rape upon the prosecutrix and, therefore, deserves to be dealt with and punished accordingly.

3. Upon registration of FIR pursuant to the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, investigation was taken up. The Investigating Officer, on conclusion of the investigation, came to the conclusion that there was evidence to, prima facie, prove that the marriage between the prosecutrix and the respondent had taken place and that the respondent had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent. The prosecution, accordingly, laid the charge-sheet before the trial Court.

4. The trial Court after hearing prosecution and the defence framed charge under Section 376 RPC against the respondent on 02.09.2008. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

5. In order to sustain the charge against the respondent, the prosecution produced and examined PW-Masoo, PW-Rita Devi, PW-Indro Devi, PW-Kushalya Devi, PW-Tilak Raj, PW-Narayan Dutt, PW-Chuni Lal, PW-Chaman Lal, PW-Dr. Garima Bajpai, PW-Vijay Singh Manhas, PW-Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed and PW-Mohd. Akhtar Lone.

6. The incriminating evidence was put to the respondent and his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The respondent denied the allegation and the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence by making general denial. He, however, claimed that prosecutrix was his legally wedded wife and his marriage with her took place according to Hindu rites on 27.06.2007. He further claims that the marriage was solemnized in the presence of mother, maternal-grandmother, maternal-grandfather of the prosecutrix and others. He claims that the age of the prosocutrix at the time of marriage was 16 years. The respondent, however, chose not to lead any evidence in defence.

7. The trial Court, after considering the rival contentions and having gone through the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that the prosecutrix was minor on the day of alleged occurrence and that there were serious contradictions in the statements of the wit