JUDGMENT 1. - This revision application of Haraklal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Paratapgarh, dated September 29, 1973, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 363, I. P. C. and a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- awarded to him by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Paratapgarh (H. Q. at Chittorgarh) vide his judgement dated June 16,1972. 2. It appears from the record that Haraklal was a teacher in a school where Mst. Sanehlata was a student. From the evidence of P. W. 30 Mooldas, who was also a teacher in the same school,, it is clear that love affairs were going on between Sanehlata and the accused petitioner. In a meeting presided over by the Head Master of that school, Sanehlata was called before the said witness and she was asked not to pursue accused Haraklal. Whereupon Sanehlata seems to have retorted before all the teachers of that school that she knows well how to take the decision about her future. It is also clear from this evidence that it was a talk of the day in the school that both Sanehlata and the accused were carrying on love affairs and the posters to that effect were also published by the students. This part of the statement of P. W. 30 Mooldas is corroborated from the statement of P. W. 9 Gaurishanker (Head Master) and also from the statement of P. W. 22 Jamnashanker, who was also a teacher in the school, 3. It is clear from the evidence of the record that Mst. Sanehlata went with the accused without the consent of her parents and that when returned from Hanumangarh she was taken to her father's house by the relations of the accused and was handed over to her maternal uncle and father at Mavli. The trial court as well as the appellate court came to tile conclusion that Mst. Sanehlata was enticed away by the accused and thus the accused committed an offence under section 363. I P. C. The accused being a teacher had committed sin of grave magnitude and, therefore, he was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, though the prosecution evidence had disclosed that Mst. Sanehlata was after him. 4. Mr. Bhimraj. learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that this case falls on border line. I P. C. The accused being a teacher had committed sin of grave magnitude and, therefore, he was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, though the prosecution evidence had disclosed that Mst. Sanehlata was after him. 4. Mr. Bhimraj. learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that this case falls on border line. The prosecution has not proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years. In this connection he placed reliance on the statements of P. W. 34 Dr. Raghubir Singh and P. W. 35 Dr. S. S. Buxi and urged that the girl was very well developed and that the medical evidence about the age of the girl that she was under all circumstances below 18 years and, therefore, in that event the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove the age of the girl Sanehlata, has placed reliance on the oral testimony of her father Mohanlal and also the documentary evidence Ex. P./14, which is a certified copy of the entries of the admission register of the school where Mst. Sanehlata was studying. Also reliance has been placed on horoscope Ex. P/10, which was produced by the maternal uncle of the girl Sanehlata and it is said to be prepared by a Pandit at the time of her birth in the `bahi' belonging to the maternal uncle of the girl. According to these two documents the date of birth of the girl is 3.11.56. Ex. P/14 has been proved by P. W. 9 Gaurishankar, but he has started that the entries therein were not made by him. The witness also disclosed that the admission form on the basis of which the entries would have been made, was missing and inspite of search made by him it was not traceable. Ex. P/10 has been proved by P.W 24 Kashiram & P.W. 2 Motilal, but this document is of such a nature which could be prepared at any moment and, therefore, in such matters the court cannot overlook the testimony of the medical officer, who happened to examine the prosecutrix at the time when the crime had been committed. P.W. 34 Dr. P/10 has been proved by P.W 24 Kashiram & P.W. 2 Motilal, but this document is of such a nature which could be prepared at any moment and, therefore, in such matters the court cannot overlook the testimony of the medical officer, who happened to examine the prosecutrix at the time when the crime had been committed. P.W. 34 Dr. Raghubir Singh is the doctor who had taken the X-ray plates of the bones of the prosecutrix and on that basis recorded his opinion about the of age of the girl. According to P. W. 34 Dr. Raghubir Singh, the age of the girl was assessed by him as 17. The reading of X-ray plates by P.W. 34 Dr. Raghubir Singh is that:- "All the epiphysis at the elbow were fused. Those of the head of Metacarples were about to complete fusion. All the epiphysis at the distal ends of Radius & Ulna are seen lying separate." In his cross-examination the doctor has admitted that there could be a difference in age and the girl could be in between 16 to 18 years. The assessment given by this witness is only approximate. He also admitted that ossification test is not the only surest test for determining bone-age. He also admitted that, no datas have been given in Rajasthan for the fusion of bones. 6. P.W. 35 Dr. S. S. Buxi, who had clinically examined the girl, found her height 5' - 1', weight 91 lbs and 28 permanent teeth, 14 in each jaw. The space for the third molar was forming. Breasts were well developed, auxiliary hairs were black and bushy & her pubic hairs were black and bushy. The general built of the girl, as found by the doctor, was well and well nourished. He also on the basis of this datas assessed the age of the girl as 17. But in his cross examination he was of the opinion that the third molar may in certain cases appear earlier or at a late stage and in some cases, it may not erupt even, altogether and, therefore, he was not sure that the age of the girl was 17. He categorically stated:- "There is always margin of two years on either side. In this case too, her age may vary between 15 years to 19 years". 7. He categorically stated:- "There is always margin of two years on either side. In this case too, her age may vary between 15 years to 19 years". 7. From the evidence of age recorded by the prosecution a doubt may arise that the girl was well built and that she was after the accused and inspite of the efforts made by the Head Master and other teachers of the school, she was not prepared to give up her choice towards the accused. However, this-argument of Mr. Bhim Raj does not appeal to me that the accused had no hands in taking her away from the school to Hanumangarh where the accused had gone on leave. But the crucial question is whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, had been able to prove the age of the prosecutrix below 18. The evidence produced relating to the age of the prosecutrix creates a ray of doubt in the mind of the Court that the prosecutrix cannot be said with certainly to be a girl below 18 appears of age and, therefore, in these circumstances the conviction of the accused petitioner cannot be upheld. The benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the at accused petitioner. 8. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted. The accused is given the benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge under section 363, I.P.C. and the sentences passed for the said offence are set aside. The accused is on bail. He need not to surrender his bail bonds, The bail bonds are hereby quashed. *******