JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.2.96 of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanandgaon whereby appellant Parmanand was convicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC, by enticing away a minor girl of 14 years and establishing sexual relationship with her and thus raping her. The appellant was sentenced as under: (1) Under section 363 I.P.C. R.I. for 3 years (2) Under section 366 I.P.C. R.I. for 4 years (3) Under section 376 I.P.C. R.I. for 7 years. 2. The trial Court found that accused Parmanand, aged about 19 years, enticed away this girl on 15.7.94 and entered into marriage forcibly with her and then committed sexual intercourse with her. The girl was residing with her parents. Co-accused Vijay was also tried for an offence under section 212, I.P.C. for concealing the accused, but he has been acquitted. It was found that the girl was born on 28th March, 1980 and an entry was made in the birth-register to that effect. In the school, Sevanti Bai, mother of the girl, had got recorded her name as Mamta Bai. She had gone to school on 15.7.94, but did not return. She had left the school at 1 p.m. Father of the girl was employed in the Health Department. He lodged a report for missing of the girl. Prosecutrix and Parmanand were traced in village Dalli-Rajhara in the house of Jambai. The girl was recovered from there and both were got medically examined. 3. Finding of age of the girl is based on the birth certificate and the statements of the parents. Father is an educated person and had given the exact date of birth. He had got recorded her birth in the Birth-Register and he had signed that register. It was maintained and possessed by the Kotwar. As the Kotwar was illiterate, so he himself had made entry and signed it. The trial Court has also relied upon the statement of the prosecutrix Mamta Bai who had not only given her date of birth as 28.3 .1980, but had also described as to how she went away with the accused. The accused was known to her as he used to visit her in the house of his maternal uncle. The trial Court has also relied upon the statement of the prosecutrix Mamta Bai who had not only given her date of birth as 28.3 .1980, but had also described as to how she went away with the accused. The accused was known to her as he used to visit her in the house of his maternal uncle. She was living in village Kumarda with her parents in the house of Mannalal Sahu while Parmanand was residing in the house of his maternal uncle Mannalal Sahu. The appellant used to offer to marry her and to-take her to Nagpur and Dalli-Rajhara. He suggested to her on 14.7.94 that she should meet him in Dongargarh next day, i.e. 15.7.94 at 1 p.m. So, on the appointed date, at 1 p.m., from her school, she went to Dongargarh where Parmanand met her at the bus-stop. From there, he took her to Bhilai. Vijay was there. On 16.4.94, Parmanand took her to village Jewara-Tirka. From there, he took her to Dalli-Rajhara. There Parmanand put Sindur on her fore head and put her in a rented house. He committed sexual intercourse with her in the house that night. She says that she was not willing for it, but on the threat to kill, she was compelled to suffer such an act. In this manner, the accused continued to have sexual intercourse with her up-to 20.7.94 and on 20.7.94, father of the girl came with police and rescued her. Accused Parmanand as well as Vijay were arrested from there. The trial Court found that the entry in the birth certificate pertains to the prosecutrix, as explained by her parents in their statements. This entry was properly proved and the father of the girl had signed that entry. She was a minor girl enticed away by the accused. The mere fact, that she went from the school to bus-stand voluntarily, does not take away the element of enticement in the whole transaction because the girl was of the age of minority. 4. During the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is not established that the birth certificate Ex. P-4-A pertains to this prosecutrix Mamta Bai. Recording of the name Savitri Bai suggests that it could be of another daughter of Sohanlal, father of the girl. 4. During the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is not established that the birth certificate Ex. P-4-A pertains to this prosecutrix Mamta Bai. Recording of the name Savitri Bai suggests that it could be of another daughter of Sohanlal, father of the girl. Police had recovered the whole book-let of the births and deaths kept by Pratap Kotwar in village Dongargarh. Actual entry of birth is given in the book-let Ex.P-3-A. P.W. 3 is Pratap, Kotwar of village Dogargarh. He knew Sohanlal, father of the prosecutrix, and had narrated that Sohanlal had got recorded the birth of his daughter as Savitri who is now known as Mamta Bai. Sohanlal had himself made entry in the birth book-let and signed it. This witness had produced the original book-let. This witness does not know reading and writing and so the entry of birth was got done by Sohanlal. 5. Father of the girl namely Sohanlal has stated that though the prosecutrix was born to him on 28th March, 1980 but the entry in the birth-booklet was made on 31st March, 1980. There are number of entries in this booklet, before this entry and after this entry. Name of the mother is also recorded as Sevanti Bai. Sohanlal says that initially, her name was kept as Savitri, but later, it was changed to Mamta Bai. He has stated that this birth-entry was signed by Ajjulal as Ajjulal had also come to make entry of birth of his daughter. 6. Savanti Bai, mother of the girl, states that her date of birth is 28th March, 1980 and that she was given the initial name of Savitri, but later, it was changed to Mamta. She says that when the girl was recovered, she (girl) told her that the accused enticed her away (BAHLA FUSLAKAR LE GAYA). 7. Mamta Bai prosecutrix, in her statement in cross-examination has stated that she had taken Rs. 500/- from her house, while going to school and she had money when she met Parmanand and went with her. 8. Medical examination Ex.P-12 shows that her hymen was lacerated and the vaginal orifice admitted two fingers. This evidence clearly proves beyond doubt that Ex.P-3A and Ex.P-4-A is the birth entry of Mamta. Her initial date of birth was recorded as Savitri. Her age is proved beyond doubt. Kotwar has also established this fact. 8. Medical examination Ex.P-12 shows that her hymen was lacerated and the vaginal orifice admitted two fingers. This evidence clearly proves beyond doubt that Ex.P-3A and Ex.P-4-A is the birth entry of Mamta. Her initial date of birth was recorded as Savitri. Her age is proved beyond doubt. Kotwar has also established this fact. It is a relevant piece of evidence maintained under the rules and regulations of the State Govt. by the Kotwar. The mere fact that Kotwar is an illiterate person does not mean that the entry should be discarded. The entry pertains to this girl. Other entries also in the booklet do not appear to be interpolated or back-dated. The booklet appears to have been kept in the regular co-use of official business of the Kotwar. It is relevant admissible document under section 35 of the Evidence Act. This, read with the evidence of the parents and the Kotwar, clearly establishes that this entry pertains to the prosecutrix Mamta Bai. 9. It is a common experience that the name of child, at the time of birth, is different from his/her existing name, ultimately chosen by the parents. The contention for the accused is that the entry in the school-register has not been proved, nor the evidence of her medical-test about her body-age was proved while taking X-ray of her joint and so the important evidence has been withheld. For this reason, it is urged that the age recorded in the birth-booklet of Kotwar should not have been relied upon. 10. Birth register kept in the regular course of official business is the best evidence of the age as the entry is made• of single birth of child. In fact, the certified copy of such entry is proveable. That original has been brought and it is signed by the father of the girl, who even scribed it, because of the illiteracy of the Kotwar there is no infirmty in that Evidence and the circumstances support the entry. 11. Educated parents remember and. know the date of birth of their children. For this reason also, the statements of the parents in this is a relevant and reliable proof of the date of birth of the girl. The entry in the school register is not a definite proof of the date of birth. 11. Educated parents remember and. know the date of birth of their children. For this reason also, the statements of the parents in this is a relevant and reliable proof of the date of birth of the girl. The entry in the school register is not a definite proof of the date of birth. It only says that the parents or person, who got her admitted in the school, stated that was the date of birth of the girl. From that angle also, the entry in the birth register is the best evidence also as the statement of date of birth is made at the time of birth when there is no motive to falsely record it. 12. Medical evidence of joint of epiphyses of the bone joint is only an estimated evidence and probable. There is always a margin of error of 2 to 3 years, because of the climatic difference. So it is not a reliable evidence. 13. Prosecution has produced the best evidence about the birth of the girl. It has been rightly believed by the trial Court. On consideration of this evidence, I find no infirmity in the age nor any infirmity in the finding of the trial Court. So age of the girl was about 14 years when she went with the accused Parmanand. 14. It is true that the girl admits that she voluntarily went from school to meet this accused at the bus-stop of another village and from there they went to Bhilai. She being voluntarily a party, is cofirmed by the fact that she had taken Rs. 500/- from home secretly to undertake this venture. But for doing all this, she acted under the dictate of the accused. Mind of children is so immature that they can easily be misled and swayed. The accused had written love letters to her that he could not live without her. He would offer to marry her and promised to take her to Nagpur and Dalli-Rajhara where they would have lot of fun and roam around. For an unripe mind of child with little experience of life in this world, this is sufficient inducement. 15. The fact that the girl went voluntarily up-to the bus-stop does not provide any defence to the appellant, as she was under a state of influence of the accused. It is a clear case of enticing her away from the parents. For an unripe mind of child with little experience of life in this world, this is sufficient inducement. 15. The fact that the girl went voluntarily up-to the bus-stop does not provide any defence to the appellant, as she was under a state of influence of the accused. It is a clear case of enticing her away from the parents. 16. Intention of the accused was clear. He wanted to make a show of marriage, and to enjoy her sexually. This he did. He enjoyed her money and her body. She was minor girl of 14 years and 3 months nearly. 17. From the evidence, it is fully established that the accused-appellant Parmanand Kidnapped this minor girl with the intention to commit sexual intercourse with her. He did commit inter-co-use with her. His offences are punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The finding of the trial Court has no infirmity and is confirmed. 18. As regards the sentence, the trial Court has given only reasonable sentence. 7 years R.I is normal sentence in cases of rape. I find no harshness in awarding the sentence on either count. Same are also confirmed. The sentences shall run concurrently. 19. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Conviction and sentence are confirmed. Warrant of confirmation be sent.