USHA SHUKLA. J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment will also dispose of M. Cr. C. No. 880/93. ( 2 ) ACCUSED Sheelabai is the mother of accused Ashok Kumar. They have both been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 366 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Ashok Kumar has further been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Both these sentences have been ordered to run consecutively. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION case is that prosecutrix Shantibai is the minor daughter of Gopal alias Gafloo (P. W. 2 ). On or about 13. 1. 1990, she had gone out at her house to ease herself. From there she was kidnapped by two above referred accused persons with the intent that she would be compelled to marry against her wishes, They took her to Shajapur where she was made to stay with accused Ashok Kumar. She was sexually molested by Ashok Kumar, whot had repeated sexual intercourse with her. She was finally rescued by Head Constable Ambika Prasad (P. W. 4 ). On 16-3-1990, she was brought back to Khurai. She was sent for medical examination on 17-3-1990, where Dr. Smt. K. Saxena (P. W. 10) carried out the physical examination. For confirmation of age she referred her to radiological examination, which was conducted by Dr. A. N. Tripathi (P. W. 11), who assessed her age to be above 15 years but\below 18 years. During investigation the School Leaving Certificate was also obtained from Ramcharan Sahu (P. W. 5), a teacher of the school. On completion of investigation a challan was put up against both the accused persons. ( 4 ) THE Trial Court considered the evidence on record and held both the accused persons guilty of the charges framed against them. It awarded the sentences described above. ( 5 ) IN this appeal, the finding and sentence have been challenged on the ground that the Trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence. The age of the prosecutrix was not proved to be below 18 years and the offence was not proved beyond doubt. Accused Ashok Kumar also prayed in M. Cr. C. No. 880/93 that the sentence awarded against him be made concurrent. The age of the prosecutrix was not proved to be below 18 years and the offence was not proved beyond doubt. Accused Ashok Kumar also prayed in M. Cr. C. No. 880/93 that the sentence awarded against him be made concurrent. ( 6 ) THE learned Advocate supported the finding given and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. ( 7 ) I have heard learned Counsel for both parties arid also have gone through the record of the Trial Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the girlts father Gopal (P. W. 2) that Shantibai had disappeared on 13th of January, 1990 and was eventually recovered at Shajapur along with the accused persons. Head Constable Ambika Prasad (P. W. 4) had also deposed that Shantibai was recovered at Shajapur from the house of the accused persons. Recovery Mmemo (Ex. P. 2) was prepared on the spot. It bears the signatures of both the accused persons also. ( 8 ) SHANTIBAI (P. W. 1) would have had believed that she was kidnapped by the accused persons after she lost consciousness on drinking the tea offered by Sheelabai. But in her statement before the police her story was different. There she stated that Sheelabai persuaded her to go with her to Shajapur on the pretext that she would get her employed in some Government Job and that she would be getting good clothes and would be leading a better life. The manner in which the prosecutrix live with the accused persons for about two months without complaining to anyone militated against the story of use of force. The evidence and the circumstances, clearly makes out a case of consent. ( 9 ) THIS brings me to the question of age. Gopal is the father of the prosecutrix who says that she was aged 13-1/2 (thirteen and a half) years but there is no basis of which he says this. The school leaving certificate (Ex. P 4) and admission register (Ex. P 6), record her date of birth as 20-10-76 bringing her age to be below 16 years at the time of incident. However, entry of date of birth in scholar registers at the time of admission of a boy or girl is not a legal evidence pertaining to the age of the said girl or boy. P 6), record her date of birth as 20-10-76 bringing her age to be below 16 years at the time of incident. However, entry of date of birth in scholar registers at the time of admission of a boy or girl is not a legal evidence pertaining to the age of the said girl or boy. It is so because that it is a fact of common knowledge that the ages given at the time of admission are far from being precise. More often than not, attempt is made by the parents and guardians of their wards to give a later date of birth than the real one. Thus, the age given in the school certificates are not dependable for determination of the precise date of birth of a student, to whom as to the date of birth in the school register pertains. Raunki Saroop v. State. ( 10 ) IN Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, it was observed in the last part of Para 21 of the authority as below: In our country it is not uncommon for parents sometimes to change the age of their children in order to get some material benefit either for appearing in examination or for entering a particular service which would be denied to a child as under the original date of birth he would be either under aged or ineligible. TI Therefore, entry of date of birth in school leaving certificate or admission register is not a legal evidence of Shantibai (P. W. 1 ). ( 11 ) REGARDING ossification test, it has to be seen that Dr. A. N. Tripati (P. W. 11) has deposed that the age of Shantibai at the time of the said examination was above 16 years but below 18 years. It is notorious and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years; on either side. Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary. Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others. Therefore, the age of Shantibai, during the relevant period could have been in between 12 years to 20 years. Consequently, prosecution could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Shantibai was below the age of 18 years. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, in the result, the present appeal is allowed. Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary. Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others. Therefore, the age of Shantibai, during the relevant period could have been in between 12 years to 20 years. Consequently, prosecution could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Shantibai was below the age of 18 years. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, in the result, the present appeal is allowed. The accused is held not guilty and for the reasons aforesaid, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age, much less 16 years at the time of incident. Conviction of the accused persons under Sections 366 and 376 of the I. P. C. cannot, therefore, be sustained. The appeal is therefore, allowed, conviction and sentence are set aside. Sheelabai is on bail, she need not surrender to her bail bonds. Accused Ashok Kumar be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. ( 13 ) M. Cr. C. No. 880/93 becomes infructuous and is ordered to be filed. Appeal allowed. .