Judgment :- The revision petitioner is the accused who has been convicted by the trial Court under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, which has been confirmed by the appellate Court. The accused stood charged under sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. but he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. on the ground that she was a consenting party to sexual intercourse and she was above 16 years of age. We have to only see whether the conviction and sentence passed under Section 366 I.P.C. by the Courts below is correct or not. 2. The case against the accused who was aged 20 is that P.W. 2 Sharmugaselvi who was 13 years of age was living with her mother P.W. 1 at Tiruvarur and the accused was living just about 10 or 15 feets away from the house of P.W. 1 and while so on 13-9-1989 at about 6.00 p.m., when P.W. 2 was going from her house to the house of her tuition master, at the Kodikkalpalayam bus stop, the accused enticed her by saying that they would go to cinema, drama and outstations, and took her in a bus to Tiruvarur bus stand and from there he took her in a bus to Chidambaram bus stand where they reached at about 9.30 p.m. There the accused took out a Thali from his bag and in spite of her protest he tied it around her neck and kept her there in the bus stand throughout the night and on the next day morning he took her in a bus to Pondicherry and there near the new bus stand he kept her in a hut where a man by name Vanathaiyan and an old lady were living and in the night he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her, and because she had no money and she was under the custody of the old lady and the accused threatened her that she should not leave the place, she was there for about a month. 3. On coming to know of this the father of the accused along with some others came there and took both the accused and P.W. 2 to Thiruvarur Police station. 3. On coming to know of this the father of the accused along with some others came there and took both the accused and P.W. 2 to Thiruvarur Police station. Earlier the mother of the girl P.W. 1 had given a report to the police. After investigation of the case the charge sheet was filed. 4. As stated above the revision petitioner-accused stands convicted both by the trial Court and the appellate court under Section 366, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. 5. Now in the revision it is argued that the evidence could show that it cannot be definitely stated that the girl P.W. 2 was less than 18 years and therefore giving the benefit of doubt the accused must be acquitted. 6. The appellate Court on consideration of the entire evidence relating to the age of the girl P.W. 2 has come to a definite conclusion that she was at the relevant time below 18 years of age. Ex. P. 10 has been filed as the Birth Register extract concerning P.W. 2 obtained from the Thiruvarur Municipality. There is no reason whatsoever to discard this. Birth Register extract is a valuable piece of evidence as regards the age of a person. Nothing has been argued or suggested as to why this document should not be relied on. It is only argued that this document does not contain the name of P.W. 2. But as rightly pointed out by the appellate Court name of P.W. 2 would not find a place because at the time the entries were made the child would not have been named. 7. Then the Radiologist P.W. 12 has deposed that she examined P.W. 2 regarding her age taking X-rays and in her opinion P.W. 2 was of the age of more than 16 years and less than 18 years. But however having said so she has stated to the effect that the age could be two years more or two years less than what she has stated. It is rather surprising that having clearly stated that the age should be above 16 and below 18 she has then said that it could be two years less or two years more. I agree with the appellate Court when it has stated that this later version given by P.W. 12 can be given no credence. It is rather surprising that having clearly stated that the age should be above 16 and below 18 she has then said that it could be two years less or two years more. I agree with the appellate Court when it has stated that this later version given by P.W. 12 can be given no credence. Whatever may be the credibility that can be given to the evidence of P.W. 12, in my view, Ex. P. 10 can be relied on, and considering the other evidence in the case including that of the mother of P.W. 2 who as P.W. 1 has stated that P.W. 2 was 13 years of age, it can be safely held that at the relevant time P.W. 2 was less than 18 years. No other point was argued. 8. But having acquitted of the charge of rape, the accused cannot be convicted under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and he is liable to be convicted for an offence under section 363 i.e., for mere kidnapping which is a lesser offence. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence under section 366, I.P.C. passed on the accused is set aside and instead the revision petitioner-accused is convicted under section 363, I.P.C. He is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. Order accordingly.