S. P. KHARE, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS No. 2 to 6 have been convicted under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and 5 years respectively. They have also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,000/- each for these offences. Appellant Sumitra Bai and Vijay have been convicted under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that on 22-8-1985 at about 2. 00 p. m. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) aged about 14 years and a student of Class VIII was reading in her house. She is daughter of Bindasingh (P. W. 7) who was Security Guard in Katkona Colliery. Accused K. Shanker Rao Reddy, Basantram. Shrichand, Ghuran and Anil Kumar Mishra, knocked at the back door of her house. She opened the door. They told her that accused Sumitra was calling her. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) used to treat accused Sumitra, as her sister. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) went with them towards the house of accused Sumitra. In the way, accused K. Shanker Rao Reddy remarked why she was living with her poor father. He also represented that he would make her a Doctor and marry her. On the way, near the nala, accused Sumitra Bai was standing. All of them reached the house of accused Sumitra. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) asked Sumitra the reason for calling her. Sumitra Bai told her that she would tell this after some time. She gave her an apple and some groundnut to eat. She took those things and started feeling drowsiness. She fell asleep. In the evening at about 5. 30 p. m. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) expressed that she wanted to meet her mother. Sumitra Bai replied that now she would meet another mother. Sumitrabai took her to a room and closed it. Next day she was shifted to bath room of the house. A search was being made for Sangeeta (P. W. 10 ). She was recovered from the house of Sumitra Bai in the night. She was taken to her parents. She narrated the whole incident to them. Bindasingh (P. W. 7) lodged the report (Ex. Next day she was shifted to bath room of the house. A search was being made for Sangeeta (P. W. 10 ). She was recovered from the house of Sumitra Bai in the night. She was taken to her parents. She narrated the whole incident to them. Bindasingh (P. W. 7) lodged the report (Ex. P. 7) at Police Station, Patna on 24-8-1985 at 9. 30 a. m. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed. ( 3 ) THE accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence was that they have been falsely implicated. ( 4 ) THE trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record held the appellants guilty for the offences as stated at the outset. ( 5 ) IN this appeal, it is argued that Sangeeta (P. W. 10) is not proved to be below 18 years of age. It is further argued that it appears that she left her parental house and went to the residence of Sumitra Bai of her own accord. ( 6 ) THE evidence on record has been carefully scrutinized by this Court. The first question is what was the age of Sangeeta (P. W. 10) at the time of the alleged incident. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) has stated that she is 14 years of age. That is also the estimate made by the trial Court while recording her deposition. She has stated that she was a student of VIIIth Class. She has not been cross-examined on the point of age. Vimla Devi (P. W. 11) is the mother of Sangeeta (P. W. 10 ). She has deposed that age of Sangeeta is 15 years. She has two sons, elder to Sangeeta. The evidence of this witness also regarding the age of Sangeeta has not been assailed in cross-examination. Bindasingh (P. W. 7) is father of Sangeeta. He has stated that age of his daughter is 13 years. He does not correctly remember the date of her birth. He was working as a Security Guard. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) is his third child. In cross-examination he has stated that he does not remember where Sangeeta was born as he is transferred from one place to another every year or two. ( 7 ) THE parents are the best witnesses regarding the age of their child. He was working as a Security Guard. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) is his third child. In cross-examination he has stated that he does not remember where Sangeeta was born as he is transferred from one place to another every year or two. ( 7 ) THE parents are the best witnesses regarding the age of their child. It is true that parents of Sangeeta (P. W. 10) are not able to specify her exact date of birth but they are able to depose about her age on the basis of their estimate keeping in view the ages of their other children. Therefore, from the evidence of parents it is found that Sangeeta (P. W. 10) was not more than 15 years of age on the date of incident. ( 8 ) JAGDISH Singh Vaishya (P. W. 9) is Principal of Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Bada Bazar Chirimiri. He has produced the admission register of the school from 1973-74 to 1-12-1982. In this register at page No. 56 and serial No. 426, name of Ku. Sangeeta is entered. Her father's name has been shown as Binda Singh. She was admitted in Class III. According to this register, her date of birth is 9-7-1970. A copy of the entry in this admission register is Ex. P. 11. In cross-examination he has stated that admission register is maintained as per rules of the Government. He is not able to tell the basis on which the date of birth of Sangeeta has been entered in this register. ( 9 ) IN Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 SC 1057 : (1982 Cri LJ 994) it has been held that school certificate regarding the age are admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. It has also been held that all that is necessary is that the document should be maintained regularly by a person whose duty it is to maintain the document and there is no legal requirement that the document should be maintained by a Public Officer only. Earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U. P. , AIR 1964 SC 1625 : (1964 (2) Cri LJ 590) has been relied upon in which it was observed that the entry in the school register supported by an affidavit of the father stating the date of birth amounts to evidence of the age. Earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U. P. , AIR 1964 SC 1625 : (1964 (2) Cri LJ 590) has been relied upon in which it was observed that the entry in the school register supported by an affidavit of the father stating the date of birth amounts to evidence of the age. Such entry in the school register is ante litem motam. Further in Biradmal Singhal v. Anand Ram, AIR 1988 SC 1796 , it has been observed that the entry in the school register is admissible (in) evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. It is for the Court to decide what weight is to be given to such entry. ( 10 ) THE decisions of this Court on the point of admissibility, relevancy and evidentiary value of the school certificate for determination of the age should be looked into. In Manikchand v. Krishna, AIR 1932 Nag 117, it was held that where there is an official duty cast upon any officer or minister to make an entry, and in pursuance of such duty he duly makes an entry in his register, such entries are admissible in evidence. Thus since under Education-Manual of the Central Provinces and Berar, Part 2, Ch. 6, Art. 27, which deals with the admission of pupils, it is laid down that in case of a pupil admitted to a recognised school for the first time, the date of birth shall be ascertained from the parent or guardian in writing and entered in the admission register, and consequently there is a duty imposed upon the school master to enter the age of all pupils he admits in his register, such entry is admissible in evidence to prove the age of a person. Following this decision it was held in Liladhar v. Nabi Bai, AIR 1943 Nag 44, that a school certificate duly prepared according to authority is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. A Division Bench in Gaya Prasad v. Jamuna Prasad, 1959 MPLJ Note 143, has held that an entry in a school register which is maintained by a recognised school is evidence of the date of birth of a pupil. A Division Bench in Gaya Prasad v. Jamuna Prasad, 1959 MPLJ Note 143, has held that an entry in a school register which is maintained by a recognised school is evidence of the date of birth of a pupil. Again in Rambharose v. Jagannath Singh, 1968 JLJ SN 5, it has been held that the school certificate is admissible in evidence as proof of the age of the person concerned under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. ( 11 ) IN Harpal Singh v. State of H. P. , AIR 1981 SC 361 : (1981 Cri LJ 1), the entry in the admission register was relied upon as proof of age. In Bhoop Ram v. State of U. P. , AIR 1989 SC 1329 : (1990 Cri LJ 2671) it has been held that a school certificate cannot be rejected on surmise that it is not unusual for parents to understate the age of their children by one or two years at the time of their admission in school for securing benefits to their children in their future years. ( 12 ) CERTAIN decision have been cited on behalf of the appellants regarding the entry of age in the school register. In Munnalal v. State of M. P. , 1977 JLJ 731, a Division Bench of this Court was considering the question of age of the prosecutrix. The school certificate in that case was not found to be reliable. In Jankinath v. Jyotishchandra, AIR 1941 Cal 41, it has been held that the statement in the school register about the age of the person in absence of evidence to show on what material the entry in the register about the age of that person was made has not much evidentiary value. Again in Jagannath v. Motiram, AIR 1951 Pun 377, it has been observed that the school register is not of much evidentiary value to prove the age of a person when there is no evidence to show that on what material the entry in the school register was made. In Rammurti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1970 SC 1029 : (1970 Cri LJ 991) it has been held that unproved and unexhibited school certificate cannot be relied upon. In Rammurti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1970 SC 1029 : (1970 Cri LJ 991) it has been held that unproved and unexhibited school certificate cannot be relied upon. In Lalta Prasad v. State of M. P. , AIR 1979 SC 1276 : (1979 Cri LJ 867) the age of the prosecutrix on the basis of the totality of the evidence was held to be above 16 years. ( 13 ) ON a consideration of the relevant decisions on the point, this Court is of the opinion that the entry in the school register regarding the age of a child is relevant and admissible piece of evidence. Such entries, as already stated, are ante litem motam and, therefore, these entries have the evidentiary value. It is well known that matriculation certificate recording the age of the student is admitted everywhere as proof of age. Entry in the matriculation certificate is made on the basis of the admission register. The probative value of a school certificate regarding the age would depend upon the facts of each case. ( 14 ) IN the present case the age of the prosecutrix deposed to by the parents and estimated by the Court approximates the age given in the school register. The oral evidence of the parents corroborates the entry in the school register. ( 15 ) ON the basis of the evidence which is available on record, this Court is of the opinion that Sangeeta (P. W. 10) was aged about 15 years when the alleged incident took place. ( 16 ) THE next question is whether she was kidnapped by the appellants K. Shanker Rao Reddy, Basant Ram, Shri Chand, Ghuran and Anil Mishra. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) has deposed that she came back from her school and took the food. Her mother went for sleeping in the room. She was doing her home-work; she heard the knock at the back door of her house. She opened the door; she saw accused Shanker Rao Reddy, Anil Mishra, Ghuran, Basant and Shrichand. Accused Shanker Rao Reddy told her that her friend Sumitra whom she calls Deedi is waiting for her near the Nala. She told them that she would come after some time. After about 10 minutes she came outside. She saw all these accused persons standing there. She proceeded towards the house of Sumitra. Accused Shanker Rao Reddy told her that her friend Sumitra whom she calls Deedi is waiting for her near the Nala. She told them that she would come after some time. After about 10 minutes she came outside. She saw all these accused persons standing there. She proceeded towards the house of Sumitra. On the way, appellant Shanker Rao Reddy told her that he would make her a Doctor. He also said as to why she was living with her father. She retorted that as to why he was committing joke with her and why was he talking non sense. Then Sumitra met her and took her to her house. Sumitra gave her an apple and some groundnuts for eating. She asked Sumitra the reason for calling her. Sumitra stated that she would tell her after some time. After eating the apple and the groundnut she started feeling uneasiness and drowsiness. She told Sumitra that she was not feeling well. She fell asleep there. In the evening she got up and asked Sumitra to take her to her mother. Sumitra replied that she would now meet not this mother but another mother. She started weeping. Sumitra put her in a room of her house and closed it. She remained there for whole of the night. Next day, she was shifted to bath room. At about 8. 00 p. m. , 5-6 persons came to the house of Sumitra and they asked her whether she has confined her there. Sumitra replied that she (Sangeeta) is not there. Then they searched her and took her out from the bath room. They took her to her mother's house. She narrated this incident to her mother and father. In cross-examination she has stated that she did not tell her mother before going to the house of Sumitra. She has further stated that she had not gone to the house of Sumitra before this incident. Sumitra used to meet her in the way or Sumitra used to come to her house. She used to call her 'deedi". ( 17 ) THE evidence of Sangeeta (P. W. 10) appears to be very natural. There is no reason for making false statement against the appellants. Her evidence has been corroborated by her mother Vimladevi (P. W. 11) and her father Bindasingh (P. W. 7) to whom she narrated the incident immediately after the occurrence. ( 17 ) THE evidence of Sangeeta (P. W. 10) appears to be very natural. There is no reason for making false statement against the appellants. Her evidence has been corroborated by her mother Vimladevi (P. W. 11) and her father Bindasingh (P. W. 7) to whom she narrated the incident immediately after the occurrence. The statement made by the prosecutrix to them is a corroborative piece of evidence under Sections 8 and 157 of the Evidence Act. See State of Tamil Nadu v. Suresh, (1998) 2 SCC 372 : (1998 Cri LJ 1416 ). That is also admissible as res gestae under S. 6 of the Evidence Act. The testimony of the prosecutrix is further substantiated by the report made by her father. That report is Ex. P. 7. Nothing has been suggested in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that they were having any grudge against the appellants. Dhaniram (P. W. 1), Omprakash (P. W. 2) and Shobhnath (P. W. 3) have not supported the pros-ecution case. They have been declared hostile. Omprakash (P. W. 2) was the person who had brought Sangeeta (P. W. 10) from the house of Sumitra to her own house. It appears that father of the prosecutrix was transferred from Katkona Colliery to Charcha Colliery before the commencement of the trial of the case. These 3 witnesses have turned hostile for that reason. Even if their evidence is ignored, the material which is available on record shows that Sangeeta (P. W. 10) was induced and taken from her house, to the house of Sumitra. It was done without the consent of the parents of this girl. It is difficult to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the appellants that Sangeeta (P. W. 10) had a quarrel with her mother and she herself went to the house of Sumitra. There is not even a faint whisper in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that Sangeeta (P. W. 10) went to the house of Sumitra of her own accord. ( 18 ) FROM the evidence of Sangeeta (P. W. 10) as already discussed, it is found that the appellant K. Shanker Rao Reddy had induced her to leave the protection of her father as he was a poor man. It is further stated by Sangeeta (P. W. 10) that this appellant told her that he would make her a Doctor. It is further stated by Sangeeta (P. W. 10) that this appellant told her that he would make her a Doctor. In her evidence she does not say that the appellant K. Shanker Rao Reddy made an offer or induced her to marry him. The act of this appellant is covered by Section 363 and not by Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as appellants Basantram, Shrichand, Ghuran and Anil Mishra are concerned, they were present with K. Shanker Rao Reddy but they have not taken any active part. There was no overtact on their part to suggest that they induced Sangeeta (P. W. 10) to go from her house to the house of Sumitra. These four appellants deserve benefit of doubt. The charges against them are not established. So far as appellant Vijay is concerned, charge under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code against him is not proved as there is no definite evidence to this effect that he wrongfully concealed or confined Sangeeta (P. W. 10) in her house. However, appellant Sumitra had confined her in a room of her house and represented to her that she would now meet her another mother. She had also concealed her presence in her house. Appellant Vijay is acquitted of the offence under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 19 ) THIS appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants Basantram, Shrichand, Ghuran and Anil Mishra, under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. The conviction and sentence of appellant Vijay under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code are also set aside. The conviction of appellant K. Shanker Rao Reddy under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. His conviction under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping Sangeeta (P. W. 10) from the lawful guardianship of her parents is maintained. Conviction of appellant Sumitra Bai under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code is also maintained. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on appellant K. Shanker Rao Reddy for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to one year. The sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- imposed upon him for this offence is left undisturbed. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on appellant K. Shanker Rao Reddy for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to one year. The sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- imposed upon him for this offence is left undisturbed. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on appellant Sumitra Bai is reduced from 5 years to six months. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- on her is maintained. Period of detention of appellants Sumitra Bai and K. Shanker Rao Reddy as undertrial prisoners and after conviction by the trial Court, if any, shall be set off against the sentence imposed upon them. Appeal partly allowed. .