JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, Judge. The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the convict/appellants against the judgment dated 15.5.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No. 7-E/VII/2004, convicting the accused / respondents for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code in reference to FIR No. 64/2003 dated 6.6.2003, of Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. 2. By the impugned judgment appealed against, learned Additional Sessions Judge, while holding the appellants Mohan Lal @ Mohnu and Ravi Kumar guilty for the aforesaid offences has convicted and sentenced them to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of `10,000/-each for commission of offence under Section 363 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of `10,000/- each for commission of offence under Section 366 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. For commission of offence under Section 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants were also convicted and sentenced them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellant Pappu @ Surjit Singh was convicted and sentence for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to fine of `25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for commission of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was further directed in the judgment that the fine, if realized, be awarded as compensation to the victim under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was further directed in the judgment that the fine, if realized, be awarded as compensation to the victim under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6.6.2003 complainant Mehar Singh (PW-1) accompanied by his wife Gurmit Kaur lodged a complaint to the police stating that out of three sons, his one daughter / victim (name not given), aged about 16 years, studying in 10th class had gone to School on 5.6.2003 at about 7.45 A.M. but did not come back till 4.30 P.M., whereas, she used to come back at about 2.30 P.M. At the instance of (PW-1) when his son Kuldeep went to the house of the friend of victim it was gathered that the victim did not attend the school on the fateful day and the complainant, along with his wife, tried to locate his daughter to the places of his relatives and during such search (PW-1) came to know that Mohan Lal @ Mohnu, an employee of a factory in District Solan, had taken the victim in bus after alluring her to get her married. The police, after registration of FIR, has procured the birth certificate of the victim and got the victim medically examined. After completion of investigation, accused was arrested and charged for the aforesaid offences. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 11 prosecution witnesses, whereas the convict / appellants, through their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution case and adduced only one defence witness DW-1 Sh. Sita Ram. 4. PW-1 (Mehar Singh), the father of the victim, in support of the prosecution case, has stated that on 4.5.2003 victim went to her school at about 7.30 A.M. but did not come back till evening. PW-1 tried to locate her telephonically in relations, thereafter PW-1 went to Pradhan Gram Panchyat and disclosed the fact of missing of his daughter and raised suspicion against accused Pappu alias Surjit Singh who caught his daughter from hand when she had gone to attend the marriage in the house of accused Ravi. Pradhan had asked PW-1 to inquire into from the parents of the suspects, failing which, PW-1 was advised to report the matter to the police. PW-1 lodged the FIR Ex. Pradhan had asked PW-1 to inquire into from the parents of the suspects, failing which, PW-1 was advised to report the matter to the police. PW-1 lodged the FIR Ex. PW-1/A on the next day. His daughter / victim came back on 16.4.2003 accompanied by her cousin, namely, Pardeep Kumar and PW-1 was apprised by the victim that she had been waylaid by Mohan Lal and Ravi to Bharwain on the pretext that her mother is ill and when she reached at Dhaliara, she was further threatened by these accused to accompany them without saying anything. Thereafter the victim was taken to Bharwain forest by both these accused and was sexually assaulted by them, thereafter Ravi came back and accused Mohan Lal accompanied his daughter to Mukerian, where she was kept in the house of her relative, as accused Mohan Lal assured her to take back after few days. PW-1 further stated that accused Pappu alias Surjit Singh came on 15.5.2003 at her Mausi’s house and during night stay Surjit Singh also sexually assaulted her. On the next morning his daughter was brought back to her home by her cousin, namely, Pardeep. PW-1, while re-iterating his version, has stated in cross-examination that he was involved in a theft case and in that respect a compromise was arrived at on 21.6.2003 on the intervention of Panchayat. PW-1 has further indicated in cross-examination that it was agreed in the compromise that FIR lodged on suspicion was over and parties were left to live peacefully on their own. On asking of PW-1 from the parents of accused that why his daughter was caught hold during marriage in the house of accused Ravi Kumar in night by accused, PW-1 was given beatings by the father of accused and thereafter his wife and children were beaten by the parents of the accused, as such, out of fear PW-1 and his wife ran away from their house. PW-1 did not report the matter of teasing of victim by the accused. PW-1 has further stated that the victim was borne on 3.12.1987 but denied in cross-examination that the age of the victim was more than 19 years. 5. PW-4 / ( Gurmit Kaur), the mother of victim, while supporting the prosecution case, has stated that in the month of October, 2003, victim disclosed her that police had given her electric current. PW-1 has further stated that the victim was borne on 3.12.1987 but denied in cross-examination that the age of the victim was more than 19 years. 5. PW-4 / ( Gurmit Kaur), the mother of victim, while supporting the prosecution case, has stated that in the month of October, 2003, victim disclosed her that police had given her electric current. PW-4 did not report against the police. As per version of PW-4, dispute started when teasing of victim was objected by PW-4 in the marriage ceremony in the house of accused and PW-4 as well as her family members were beaten. PW-4 stated that the matter pertaining to teasing was not reported anywhere, as Pw-4 and her family members were threatened to life. 6. PW-5 / (Sher Singh), while working as Secretary Gram Panchyat had issued birth certificate of victim Ex. PW-5/A, on the basis of record maintained in the Gram Panchyat. According to such certificate, date of birth of the victim is 3.12.1987. Such certificate Ex.PW-5/A was produced to the police vide memo Ex.PW-5/B, on which PW-5 had put his signatures along with Pradhan Basant Singh and Up Pradhan Devinder Singh. 7. PW-6 / (Devinder Kumar), Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchyat, Bassi, has also put his signatures on Ex. PW-5/B, affirming the entry in birth certificate Ex. PW-5/A. 8. PW-2, the victim, in support of prosecution case, has narrated that on the fateful day, she went to school at about 7.30 A.M. and as usual she was coming back at 2.30 P.M. When she was on her way to school, accused Mohan Lal met her and on the pretext of ailment of her mother, she was taken by accused in a vehicle to Badal, where, accused told her that he could not locate her mother and further told the victim that her mother had gone ahead, as such, the victim was taken to Dhaliara, where she was threatened by accused Mohan Lal that in case she did not accompany him, the latter one would kill her as well as her parents. The accused accompanied by accused Ravi had taken away the victim to Bharwain in forest area, where she was sexually assaulted by Mohan Lal first and thereafter by Ravi Kumar. The accused accompanied by accused Ravi had taken away the victim to Bharwain in forest area, where she was sexually assaulted by Mohan Lal first and thereafter by Ravi Kumar. When PW-2 started weeping, both of accused asked her to take in her relative’s house, so she disclosed the house of her Massi at Mukerian and the victim was taken by both the accused to Mukerian. Accused Ravi Kumar slipped away after Bharwain, thereafter the victim was taken by accused Mohan Lal to the place of her Massi where she was assured that he will come after some time to take her. The victim thereafter had been residing in the house of her Massi and on 15.6.2003, accused Pappu @ Surjit came to the place of her Massi and apprized the victim that in her house situation had aggravated, then she disclosed to accused Pappu about sexual assault by accused Mohan Lal and Ravi. Then accused Pappu gave an impression and understanding to marry her, however, during night stay in the house of her Massi he had committed sexual assault on her. In the next morning accused Pappu also left the house of her Massi. PW-2 came to her house with her cousin i.e. son of her Massi, namely, Pardeep. PW-2, in her cross-examination, has stated that she was given electric current by police, so that PW-2 could name her Masad and not to name accused Pappu. PW-2 further stated that she remained in the house of her Massi for about 10-11 days and during such stay she did not disclose any thing either to her Massi or her Masad and when she reached to the house of her Massi, she told her that there is vacation in her school and during her stay in the house of her Massi, her family members were not aware her whereabouts and after coming to know about her presence in the house of her Massi, then her ‘Nani’ hired a taxi and brought her along with Pardeep to her house, as her Nani came to know that she had been there without telling her family members. PW-2 has also stated in cross-examination that she has disclosed her date of birth on the basis of birth certificate and she had disclosed before the Magistrate when her statement was being recorded, that accused Pappu had assured her to marry with her. PW-2 has also stated in cross-examination that she has disclosed her date of birth on the basis of birth certificate and she had disclosed before the Magistrate when her statement was being recorded, that accused Pappu had assured her to marry with her. Statement of PW-2 / victim was recorded before the Court on 15.11.2006, whereas, prior to this on 29.10.2003 statement of victim was recorded by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dera after explaining her that she is not bound to make statement / confession and if she does so, any confession/statement, may be used as evidence against her. In the said statement given by victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim narrated the entire incident as well as about sexual assault by accused Mohan Lal and Ravi. Victim further narrated in detail that she was taken to place of her Massi and during her stay in the house of her Massi, she was also sexually assaulted by accused Pappu. The victim has also divulged that she was given electric current by the police to make different statement and to name her Masad and not accused Pappu. 9. PW-3 / (Dr.Sunita Sood) had medically examined the victim and has opined that the victim was habitual of sexual intercourse and the sexual assault had been taken place between 12 to 24 hours before her medical examination. Victim was medically examined on 17.6.2003 at about 4.30 P.M. MLC Ex.PW-3/B was issued assessing her age about 17 years. Such assessment of her age was based on medical examination, keeping in view her secondary sexual characters development. 10. PW-7 / (Paramjit Kuar) has stated that victim is daughter of her sister and had come on 4/5th June, 2003 in her house and stayed there for 14-15 days. On 15.6.2003, one person came to her house to whom she could identify, specifically pointing out to accused Surjit alias Pappu, who had stayed during night and went away on the next day. 11. PW-8 / (HHC Baldev Raj), PW-9 / (Onkar Chand) are formal police witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case. 12. PW-10 / (SI Dalip Singh), who recorded the statement of victim under Section 161 of the Code or Criminal Procedure and was collected birth certificate of the victim from school, as Ex. PW-10/A and Ex. PW-10/B. Birth certificate of the victim from Panchyat is Ex. 12. PW-10 / (SI Dalip Singh), who recorded the statement of victim under Section 161 of the Code or Criminal Procedure and was collected birth certificate of the victim from school, as Ex. PW-10/A and Ex. PW-10/B. Birth certificate of the victim from Panchyat is Ex. PW-1/A and taken the same into possession vice memo Ex. PW-5/B. PW-10 also procured the FSL report Ex. PW-10/D and arrested the accused. 13. While arguing the case, the defence has mainly asserted on the following points:- (a) The victim was daughter of different mother i.e. she was daughter of Gurmit PW-4, whereas Ex. PW-5/A indicates the name of the mother of the victim as Ram Devi. (b) The radiological age of the victim was not ascertained. (c) The accused/respondents have been implicated falsely due to enmity and grudge, as parents of accused had beaten the parents of the victim when they had gone to the family of accused Ravi to attend the marriage. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Singh versus Priya Brat Narain Sinha & Others, AIR 1965 SC 282 , indicating that an entry of date of birth of school register was not said to be reliable, in view of the observations made in paragraph 20. Relevant paragraph 20 is extracted herein below:- “20. An objection was faintly raised by Mr.Agarwal as regards the admissibility of Ex. 2 on the ground that the register is not an official record or a public register. It is unnecessary to consider this question as the fact that such an entry was really made in the admission register showing the applicant’s date of birth as October 15, 1937 has all along been admitted by him. His case is that this was an incorrect statement made at the request of the person who went to get him admitted to the school. The request was made, it is suggested, to make him appear two years younger than he really was so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. The request was made, it is suggested, to make him appear two years younger than he really was so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. The appellant’s case is that once this wrong entry was made in the admission register it was necessarily carried forward to the Matriculation Certificate and was also adhered to in the application for the post of a Sub-Inspector of Police. This explanation was accepted by the Election Tribunal but was rejected by the High Court as untrustworthy. However much one may condemn such an act of making a false statement of age with a view to secure an advantage in getting public service, a judge of facts cannot ignore the position that in actual life this happens not in frequently. We find it impossible to say that the Election Tribunal was wrong in accepting the appellant’s explanation. Taking all the circumstances into consideration we are of opinion that the explanation may very well be true and so it will not be proper for the court to base any conclusion about the appellant’s age on the entries in these three documents viz, Ex. 2, Ex. 8 and Ex. 18.” Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Suresh Kumar alias Chotu, (2008) 10 SCC 104 , where, the verdict of High Court was affirmed by holding that where the prosecutrix was said to have voluntarily accompanied the accused and was stated to be a consenting party to sexual intercourse and rejecting the claim of the prosecutrix that she was below 16 years of age, as her claim was not based on documents or corroborated by oral evidence and her claim that she being minor, her consent was inconsequential, in a case of kidnapping and marriage allegedly solemnized on knife point and sexual assault made against her will. 15. 15. DW-1 / (Sita Ram), in defence, has claimed that present wife of father of victim is second wife, as she has been brought by Mehar Chand without any marriage and previous of Mehar Chand was Rani, who remained with Mehar Chand for about 1 ½ years and one daughter was born out of their wed-lock and when Rani left village along with her daughter she did not came back as second wife brought by Mehar Chand came over to village after 2-3 years from leaving the village and the children also accompanied with Mehar Chand when he came back with his second wife who is residing with Mehar Chand for the last 18-19 years. The version of defence that statement of victim was not recorded during investigation till her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on 28.10.2003, despite the fact that the missing report Ex. PW-1/A was lodged on 6.6.2003 indicating the suspicion against accused Mohan Lal and victim returned to her house on 16.6.2003 and she was medically examined on 17.6.2003, wherein, opinion was given that sexual assault has been made between 12 to 24 hours, thereby ruling out the involvement of any of the accused for commission of the offence. We have also noticed that testimony of PW-1 / (Mehar Chand) and PW-4 / (Gurmit Kaur) have corroborated the version of victim. Further PW-3 / (Dr.Sunita Sood) has opined as per MLC Ex. PW-5/B that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse. The testimony of victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, cannot be disbelieved, which has been made voluntarily and without any pressure. Victim has specifically denied in her cross-examination that neither the accused has committed rape on her, nor she was taken away by any of the accused. Father of the victim has denied his cross-examination that he forced the victim to make the statement by implicating the accused in order to support his suspicion. PW-4 / (Gurmit Kaur), the mother of the victim in her cross-examination has denied that the victim never disclosed that the accused Ravi and Mohan @ Mohnu had taken her away and thereafter committed sexual assault at Bharwain and thereafter accused Surjit @ Pappu visited the house of her sister on 15.3.2003 and committed sexual assault with the victim. PW-4 / (Gurmit Kaur), the mother of the victim in her cross-examination has denied that the victim never disclosed that the accused Ravi and Mohan @ Mohnu had taken her away and thereafter committed sexual assault at Bharwain and thereafter accused Surjit @ Pappu visited the house of her sister on 15.3.2003 and committed sexual assault with the victim. Non reporting of matter by father of victim and mother of victim, regarding teasing of their daughter also appears to be plausible, as parents of the victim were beaten and were threatened by the family members of the accused. PW-4/ (Gurmit Kaur) had specifically denied in cross-examination that she was not married wife of Mehar Chand and have been living since 1990 with Mehar Singh without performing any marriage. 16. PW-3 / (Dr.Sunita Sood) has corroborated the version that accused Pappu alias Surjit has sexually assaulted the victim during the night of 15th June, 2003 at Mukerian. PW-3 / (Dr.Sunita Sood) also corroborates the presence of semen over vaginal smear slide. The victim promptly disclosed the factum of sexual assault when she came to PW-1 / (Mehar Chand), father of the victim and her mother PW-4 / (Gurmit Kaur). The victim has herself stated to be minor of 15 years old on the date of occurrence, as her date of birth is 3.12.1989 as pr birth certificate Ex. Pw-5/A, maintained in the record of Gram Panchyat as well as in the school record as per certificate issued by school authorities Ex.PW-10/A, in which the same date of birth has been mentioned, which is mentioned in certificate Ex. PW-5/A. The name of the parents of the victim in the birth certificate Ex.PW-5/A has been shown Maher Singh (father) and Rani (mother) and the defence witness DW-1 (Sita Ram) has claimed the previous wife of Mehar Singh as Rani with whom the daughter was born and thereafter Rani along with her daughter had left the village and the second wife of Mehar Singh came to the village after 2-3 years accompanied by children, as this has claimed the present wife of Mehar Singh as his second wife, but this defence witness has not been able to name the present wife of Mehar Chand being his second wife, as claimed to be brought without marriage. In cross-examination, DW-1 / (Sita Ram) has admitted that he belongs to different Panchyat, though claimed to be same Panchyat previously. Whereas, PW-4 (Gurmit Kaur) in her cross-examination has specifically denied the suggestion that she is not married wife of Maher Singh and she has been living since 1990 with Mehar Singh without performing the marriage. However, no suggestion has been given to the father of the victim PW-1 / (Mehar Sigh) in his cross-examination to the factum of his first marriage with one Rani and the second marriage with PW-4 (Gurmit Kaur). The endeavour has been made to create doubt by the defence to the name of mother of the victim as mentioned in her birth certificate Ex. Pw-5/A, but since the victim has been specifically claimed the daughter of parents of the victim PW-1 / (Mehar Singh) and PW-4 (Gurmit Kaur) as no such suggestion has been put to the father of the victim as well as PW-5 (Sher Singh), Secretary of Gram Panchyat, who prepared the birth certificate Ex.P/W-8/A, as such, the assertion of defence that victim is the daughter of first wife and PW-1 (Maher Singh), is not supported by record. 17. Mere fact that the statement of the victim could not be recorded by the police during the investigation till her statement was got recorded before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Ex. PW-2/A dated 29.10.2003, as the victim has deposed in her statement as PW-2, thereby the version of the victim is reliable which inspires confidence since the victim was immediately medically examined when she came over to her house and on her medical examination she has been opined to be subjected to sexual intercourse. Therefore, merely that the statement of the victim was not recorded by the I.O. at the earliest, cannot be disbelieved the version of victim, when the victim in a natural manner has disclosed all the facts before the Judicial Magistrate. In our considered view the date of birth of victim i.e. 3.12.1987 has rightly been taken to be true by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and there is no occasion to deviate from such finding, in view of observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishnu versus State of Maharashtra, 2006 Cri.L.J, 303, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs 21, 24 and 31 as follows:- “21. It is urged before us by Mr. Lalit that the determination of the age of the prosecutrix by conducting ossification test is scientifically proved and, therefore, the opinion of the doctor that the girl was of 18-19 years of age should be accepted. We are unable to accept this contention for the reasons that the expert medical evidence is not binding on the ocular evidence. The opinion of the Medical Officer is to assist the Court as he is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the Medical Officer is really of an advisory character and not binding on the witness of fact. 22….. 23…. 24. In the case of determination of date of birth of the child, the best evidence is of the father and the mother. In the present case, the father and the mother PW-1 and PW13 categorically stated that PW-4 the prosecutrix was born on 29-11-1964, which is supported by the unimpeachable documents, as referred to above in all material particulars. These are the statements of facts. If the statements of facts are pitted against the so-called expert opinion of the doctor with regard to the determination of age based on ossification test scientifically conducted, the evidence of facts of the former will prevail over the expert opinion based on the basis of ossification test. Even as per the doctor’s opinion in the ossification test cannot form the basis for determination of the age of the prosecutrix on the face of witness of facts tendered by PW-1 and PW-13, supported by unimpeachable documents. Normally, the age recorded in the school certificate is considered to be the correct determination of age provided the parents furnish the correct age of the ward at the time of admission and it is authenticated. In the present case, as already noted, the parents had admitted to have given an incorrect date of birth of their daughter, presumably with a view to make up the age to secure admission in the school. Apart from this, as noticed earlier, the school certificate collected by PW-15 S.I. Bagal was not an authenticated document. Nobody was produced to prove the date of birth recorded in the school certificate. Apart from this, as noticed earlier, the school certificate collected by PW-15 S.I. Bagal was not an authenticated document. Nobody was produced to prove the date of birth recorded in the school certificate. The date of birth recorded in the school certificate as 29.6.1963 is, therefore, belied by the unimpeachable evidence of PWs-1 & 13 and contemporaneous documents like Date of Birth register of Greater Bombay Municipal Corporation and the register of the Nursing Home where the prosecutrix was born and proved by Dr. Shashikant Awasare, as noted above. 31. In the premises aforestated, we see no infirmity in the well merited concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below. The appeals are dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and surety stand cancelled. He is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of sentence. Compliance report should be sent to this Court within one month”. 18. Keeping in view the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Murugan alias Settu versus State of Tamil Nadu , (2011) 6 SCC, 111 that the date of birth of victim 3.12.1987 cannot be disbelieved as the same has been based on certificates Ex. PW-5/A and Ex. PW-10/B. In these facts and circumstances, the statement of the victim is, therefore, reliable and cogent which inspire confidence and is further corroborated by her parents PW-1 (Mehar Singh), PW-4 (Gurmit Kaur) and PW-4 (Sunita Sood), in reference to opinion given on medical examination. The finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge, holding the accused/respondents guilty of the aforesaid offences is, therefore, legally correct. In our considered view too the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused/respondents and we also hold the appellants Mohan Lal @ Mohnu and Ravi Kumar guilty of offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the appellants Mohan Lal @ Mohnu and Ravi Kumar are also held guilty of the offence under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and they have rightly been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge for the aforesaid offences. We also hold appellant Pappu @ Surjit Singh guilty for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the criminal appeal, preferred by the appellants, is dismissed.