Short Note : 1. Appellant was convicted under section 363, IPC. The finding of the trial Court was assailed on behalf of the appellant on the ground that the age of prosecutrix Sushilabai had not been in the case on the basis of which it could be inferred that, at the time of the said incident, she was below 18 years of age. Held : Apart from the medical evidence, Dulanbai (P.W.3), the mother of Sushilabai has deposed that the age of Sushilabai at the time of incident was 13 years and Dayalgir (P.W.5), father of Sushilabai, has also deposed that the age of Sushilabai was not more than 15 years. The prosecution has also examined P.W.9 Mangilal, a teacher in the school, where Sushilabai was studying, in order to prove her age and from the entry made about her date of birth in the school register, her date of birth has been proved to be 21-8-1960. From all this evidence, it has been found established that on the date of the incident, Sushilabai (P.W.4) was positively below 17 years of age. It is not the case of the appellant that Sushilabai was born at a place where there was a municipality or that her date of birth has been recorded in the register of any municipality. In fact, no such questions have been put to the parents of Sushilabai. It was also not disputed that Sushilabai was studying in a Government school where her date of birth has been recorded. In the present case, the prosecution has, thus the best and direct evidence about the age of the girl Sushilabai viz., the evidence of her parents which has also been corroborated substantially by the school record mentioning her date of birth. It is not at all suggested that a false entry is made about her date of birth in her school register with some ulterior motive nor there appears any reason for making any such false entry. It is also not suggested that Sushilabai was born in a nursing home where evidence about her date of birth would be normally available. It was also urged that when two views are possible the one favourable to the accused should be adopted, and that in the present case the age of Sushilabai might he above 18 years. It is also not suggested that Sushilabai was born in a nursing home where evidence about her date of birth would be normally available. It was also urged that when two views are possible the one favourable to the accused should be adopted, and that in the present case the age of Sushilabai might he above 18 years. But there is no such material or evidence on record on the basis of which any other view then that taken by the trial Court is possible. Shivlal v. Brij Mohanlal, 1975 MPLJ Note 61, Brij Mohan v. Priya Bhat, AIR 1965 SC 282 , Sidheshwar Ganguly v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1958 SC 143 at page 148, Gopal Anant v. State of M.P., 1976 JLJ 201 , distinguished. Appeal dismissed.