JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur convicting him for offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC). The prosecution case is that prosecutrix Ruma Devi was residing in the house of her Massi (maternal aunt) at village Dabla. In the year 2001, she was studying in ninth class in Government High School, Morsinghi. PW1 Suresh Kumar, her cousin, who was running a furniture shop at Morsinghi. When he returned from Delhi on 3.9.2001, PW4 Reena Devi (this witness, who was declared hostile) daughter of Devi Chand informed him that accused Parveen Kumar had kidnapped the prosecutrix. PW4 Reena Devi had accompanied them to Ghumarwin. Thereafter they made a search of the prosecutrix at Shimla, Solan and other various places, but could not trace her. Resultantly, on 5th September, 2001 Suresh Kumar PW1 lodged First Information Report at Police Station Ghumarwin that the prosecutrix who was his cousin had been kidnapped by the accused. The prosecution case further proceeds that both the prosecutrix and the accused were recovered from the house of Bua (paternal aunt) of the accused at Khol. They were got medically examined at District Hospital, Bilaspur. The doctor opined that prosecutrix Ruma had not been subjected to any sexual intercourse etc. Case was registered against the accused for offences under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. On the two points formulated by the learned Sessions Judge, as to whether the prosecutrix was kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of Suresh Kumar PW1 and whether the case of the prosecution was proved, the learned Court answered in favour of the prosecution and proceeded to convict the accused. 2. The learned Court has placed reliance on Ext.PW7/A, which was the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Padiyalag, and proved on record by PW7 Shri Gorakh Ram, the Secretary Gram Pancahyat, stating her date of birth to be 3.8.1987 and therefore, on the day of the incident i.e. 3.9.2001, her age was 14 years and one month. The learned Court holds that since PW7 was not cross examined by the defence Counsel, therefore, in this view of the matter, her date of birth stood proved/established. The learned Court holds that since PW7 was not cross examined by the defence Counsel, therefore, in this view of the matter, her date of birth stood proved/established. Adverting to the evidence further, the learned Court proceeds to consider the statement of PW1 Suresh Kumar, cousin/guardian of the prosecutrix, who states that the prosecutrix was 13 years old and was studying in ninth class in Government High School, Morsinghi. The learned Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Harpal Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1981 Cr.L.J. 1 in which it is held that the entry in the birth register is made by the concerned official in discharge of his official duty and certified copy of the entries is admissible in evidence u/s 35 of the Evidence Act. Reliance was placed on Ext.PW8/H, the school leaving certificate, produced by the Investigating Officer PW8 Shri Om Prakash to prove the date of birth of the prosecutrix. The Court then concludes that age of the prosecutrix was 14 years and one month on the date of purported incident. She was minor on that day. The Court then proceeds that the prosecutrix was in the care and custody of PW1 Suresh Kumar in village Dabla where she was studying in ninth class in Government High School, Morsinghi. The accused enticed her from his lawful guardianship and took her to Shimla, Solan, Mandi and Jandutta and then to the house of his paternal aunt at village Khol. According to PW1 Suresh Kumar, since the prosecutrix's father had died when she was young, the prosecutrix, being a poor girl, was brought up by him. The prosecutrix is his Massi's daughter (daughter of his maternal aunt) and she was in his care and custody and he was looking after her considering the penury condition prevailing in her family. Letter Ext. PW2/A was also recovered from the school bag of Ruma Devi. 3. Adverting to the statement of PW2 Ruma Devi, the Court noticed that she corroborated the fact that she was staying in the house of her maternal aunt. She says that in the year 2001, she was studying in ninth class in Government High School, Morsinghi. She says that one month prior to the occurrence, the accused had handed over a letter Ext. She says that in the year 2001, she was studying in ninth class in Government High School, Morsinghi. She says that one month prior to the occurrence, the accused had handed over a letter Ext. PW2/A to her and had pressurized her to marry him and if she did not comply with this missive, he would kill 3/4 persons. She states that: mujhe dhamkiyan deta tha ki main shadi usse karun, nahi to vah 3-4 admiyon ko maar dega, agar main kahin dusri jagah shadi karungi. (Translation: he used to threaten me that if she got marry somewhere else, he would kill three/four persons.) She then proceeds to state that he had forced her to accompany him so that they could get married. They first went to Ghumarwin, then to Shimla, thereafter to Solan and then to Mandi. She says that he had forcibly put 'sindur' on her head and at that time Roshan Lal, cousin of the accused, was also with them. PW4 Reena Devi was declared hostile as she did not support the prosecution. Her lengthy cross examination does not bring any fact which would indict the accused. This is the entirety of the evidence on which the prosecution seeks to rely to establish its case against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge considered this evidence as sufficient to convict the accused for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. 4. Adverting to the first point, the learned Sessions Judge was clearly in error in placing reliance on Ext. PW7/A and on Ext. PW8/H. The learned Court forgot that an entry in the birth register etc. had to be proved by the person who made it and not merely by tendering the same in evidence. Reliance on Harpal Singh's case has been misplaced by the learned trial Court. In that case, the Supreme Court considered the entry in the context of other evidence on record. The Court holds: 3. In the instant case the prosecution has proved the age of the girl by over-whelming evidence. To begin with, there is the evidence of Dr. Jagdish Rai (PW14) who is a radiologist and who, after X-Ray examination of the girl found that she was about 15 years of age. This is corroborated by Ext. The Court holds: 3. In the instant case the prosecution has proved the age of the girl by over-whelming evidence. To begin with, there is the evidence of Dr. Jagdish Rai (PW14) who is a radiologist and who, after X-Ray examination of the girl found that she was about 15 years of age. This is corroborated by Ext. PF, which is an entry in the admission register maintained at the Government Girls High School, Samnoli (Herein the girl was a student) and which is proved by the Head Master. That entry states the date of birth of the girl as 13th October, 1957. There is yet another document, viz., Ex. PD, a certified copy of the relevant entry into eh birth register which shows that Saroj Kumari, who according to her evidence was known as Ramesh during her childhood, was born to Lajwanti wife of Daulat Ram on 11.11.1957. Mr. Hardy submitted that in the absence of the examination of the officer/chowkidar concerned who recorded the entry, it was inadmissible in evidence. We cannot agree with him for the simple reason that the entry was made by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duties, that it is therefore clearly admissible u/s 35 of the Evidence Act and that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine its author. From whatever angle we view the evidence, the conclusion is inescapable that Saroj Kumari was below 16 years of age at the time of the occurrence. Accordingly, we agree with judgments of the Courts below and see no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. It is thus apparent and evident that in Harpal Singh's case, there was evidence of radiologist which was corroborated by the entry in the admission register which was proved by the Headmaster. In the present case, no such exercise has been undertaken. In Madan Mohan Singh and Others Vs. Rajni Kant and Another, (2010) 9 SCC 209 , the Supreme Court holds: 17. In State of Bihar Vs. Radha Krishna Singh and Others, (1983) 3 SCC 118 , this Court dealt with a similar contention and held as under: SCC pp.138, 143 and 171, paras 40, 53 and 145) 40..--.Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value quite another - these two aspects cannot be combined. In State of Bihar Vs. Radha Krishna Singh and Others, (1983) 3 SCC 118 , this Court dealt with a similar contention and held as under: SCC pp.138, 143 and 171, paras 40, 53 and 145) 40..--.Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value quite another - these two aspects cannot be combined. A document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and weight of its probative value may be nil. * * * 53.........Where a report is given by a responsible officer, which is based on evidence of witnesses and documents and has "a statutory flavour in that it is given not merely by an administrative officer but under the authority of a Statute, its probative value would indeed be very high so as to be entitled to great weight. * * * 145. (4) The probative value of documents which, however ancient they may be, do not disclose sources of their information or have not achieved sufficient notoriety is precious little. 18. Therefore, a document may be admissible, but as to whether the entry contained therein has any probative value may still be required to be examined in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The aforesaid legal proposition stands fortified by the judgments of this Court in Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar, (1969) 2 SCC 359 ; Ram Murti Vs. State of Haryana, (1970) 3 SCC 21 , Dayaram and Others Vs. Dawalatshah and Another, (1971) 1 SCC 358 , Harpal Singh and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1981) 1 SCC 560 , Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 584 Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2008) 13 SCC 133 ; Desh Raj Vs. Bodh Raj, (2008) 2 SCC 186 ; and Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 681 . In these cases, it has been held that even if the entry was made in an official record by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duty, it may have weight but still may require corroboration by the person on whose information the entry has been made and as to whether the entry so made has been exhibited and proved. The standard of proof required herein is the same as in other civil and criminal cases. 19. The standard of proof required herein is the same as in other civil and criminal cases. 19. Such entries may be in any public document, i.e. school register, voter's list or family register prepared under the Rules and Regulations etc. in force, and may be admissible u/s 35 of the Evidence Act as held in Mohd. Ikram Hussain Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1625 and Santenu Mitra Vs. State of W.B., (1998) 5 SCC 697 . 20. So far as the entries made in the official record by an official or person authorised in performance of official duties are concerned, they may be admissible u/s 35 of the Evidence Act but the Court has a right to examine their probative value. The authenticity of the entries would depend on whose information such entries stood recorded and what was his source of information. The entries in school register/school leaving certificate require to be proved in accordance with law and the standard of proof required in such cases remained the same as in any other civil or criminal cases. 21. For determining the age of a person, the best evidence is of his/her parents, if it is supported by unimpeccable documents. In case the date of birth depicted in the school register/certificate stands belied by the unimpeccable evidence of reliable persons and contemporaneous documents like the date of birth register of the Municipal Corporation, government hospital/nursing home, etc., the entry in the school register is to be discarded. (Vide Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and Others, AIR 1965 SC 282 ; Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796 Vishnu @ Undrya Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283 ; and Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 714 . 5. I need not cite more precedent since the law is now well settled. There was nobody to testify/depose that entry in the Panchayat Register had been made on the information of any particular person who was known to the prosecutrix, her parents or somebody conversant with the facts of the case. I find it intriguing that even the school leaving certificate having been relied upon by the prosecution has not been proved in accordance with law. I find it intriguing that even the school leaving certificate having been relied upon by the prosecution has not been proved in accordance with law. The school leaving certificate has simply been tendered in evidence by PW8 ASI Om Prakash, who was the Investigating Officer, but there is no explanation as to why the Headmaster or a person who had actually made the entry was not produced in Court. 6. In support of the contention that since she was studying in ninth class and was not of the age of 13 years, I find that no effort has been made by the prosecution to prove on record that she in fact was studying in this class. Documents were obviously available but the same have not been placed on record of the case. 7. The mere submission that she was the student of ninth class and therefore, she was minor cannot be accepted. It is well known that in villages boys/girls of mature age also study in this class. In this event, evidence of a Radiologist would have been vital. I may add that no effort or attempt has been made by the prosecution to get the skeletal age of the prosecutrix determined. Adverting to the other evidence, I do not find that it is the case where the prosecutrix is alleged to have been enticed. Adverting to the letter Ext.PW2/A, it is full of romantic poetry and endearments in the handwriting of the prosecutrix or of the accused. In any event, the hand writing of the accused has not been proved on record. Coupled with the fact that it is the case of the prosecutrix herself that she was moving around with the accused from town to town covering great distances from her village to Ghumarwin, then to Shimla, thereafter to Solan and then to Mandi without any protest. There is no doubt in my mind that this is not a case of kidnapping the prosecutrix, who had given the consent willingly to accompany the accused, and none forced her to accompany him. I also find in the statement of the prosecutrix that one Roshan Lal accompanied the couple to Mandi and when there was some kind of fracas with general public, he ran away. But I find no evidence on record that any report has been made by the police regarding this occurrence. I also find in the statement of the prosecutrix that one Roshan Lal accompanied the couple to Mandi and when there was some kind of fracas with general public, he ran away. But I find no evidence on record that any report has been made by the police regarding this occurrence. In these circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has been unable to establish its case. This appeal is allowed. Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur is quashed and set aside. Bail bonds furnished by the accused-appellant are discharged.