JUDGMENT K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. 1. On 22.6.2012, the appeal is admitted. The accused / appellant is in jail. Consequently, the appeal is taken on priority for hearing. 2. The appellant questions conviction recorded in Sessions Case No.149/2011 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, for offence under Section 363 of IPC, directing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/with default clause and, for offence under Section 376 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.500/with default clause. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecutrix, 14 years old, who studied upto 5th/6th Standard, was working at a brick kiln with her parents. The appellant, with his family members, was also working on an adjoining brick kiln of Smt. Meerabai. He developed acquaintance with the prosecutrix, showed her rosy picture of life and, allegedly, allured her to elope to ensue marrying. In order to achieve the plan, on 2nd June, 2011, the accused arranged for a motor cycle and from a place little away from the brick kiln or the residence, the prosecutrix boarded with him and traveled to various destinations for more than 14 days. PW No.4 Narayan, a close relation of father of the prosecutrix had conveyed, having seen the prosecutrix and the accused / appellant on a motor cycle which, as stated earlier, provided an impetus to report on 5th June, 2011, against the appellant. The roaming by the duo went upto the Pune where, in bushes in the field, they had sex. They returned at Aurangabad at the residence of the aunt of the accused/appellant, however, she, suspecting some foul play, thought it better to inform Police. Consequently, Police of Talwada Police Station, with whom earlier report of the father was lodged, was called. The appellant and the victim were taken charge by PW No.8 Sunil Aitwar. Thereafter, inquiries were made with her, when it revealed that she was exposed to sex, offence under Section 376 of IPC was recorded against accused / appellant. 4. The seized apparels were sent for Chemical Analyzer's examination. The victim and the accused / appellant were referred for medical examination. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Birth certificate (Exh.28) of the prosecutrix was collected and after completion of investigation, chargesheet against accused / appellant came to be filed. 4. The seized apparels were sent for Chemical Analyzer's examination. The victim and the accused / appellant were referred for medical examination. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Birth certificate (Exh.28) of the prosecutrix was collected and after completion of investigation, chargesheet against accused / appellant came to be filed. After committal, in terms of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the matter was assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Beed. Charge was explained to the accused. He did not plead guilty to the same. Plea was recorded. The accused pleaded false implication since he was the only member of Muslim community residing near the brick kiln. 5. In order to establish charge against the accused / appellant, 11 witnesses are examined. PW No.1 Shrikrishna Dadarao Gayake is Panch for spot panchnama (Exh.20/C), PW No.2 Raju Kolhe (Exh.21/C) is another Panch who established seizure of apparels of the prosecutrix and that of the accused vide panchnama Exh.22/23. PW No.3 Revannath Shankar Rokade is the complainant and father of the prosecutrix. PW No.4 Narayan Eknath Bhalerao saw the accused and the prosecutrix proceeding towards Jogaladevi on motor cycle. PW No.5 is the prosecutrix. PW No.6 Dr.Vishwas Gavate Medical Officer had examined the accused, issued medical certificate (Exh.33), indicating that accused / appellant was potent. PW No.7 Dr.Upendra Devidasrao Kulkarni examined the prosecutrix. He tendered provisional medical certificate at Exh.36 and after receiving the Chemical Analyzer's report and findings, issued final medical certificate at Exh.39. PW No.8 Sunil Aitwar has escorted prosecutrix and accused from Aurangabad to Talwada. PW No.9 Jalindar Mule, the Head Master of Zilla Parishad Primary school, produced admission register, its copy at Exh.46 and application for admission at Exh.45. PW No.10 Tulshiram Dhumal, Police Sub Inspector, carried investigation. PW No.11 Lahu Ravan Rathod is the carrier for Muddemal property to the office of Chemical Analyzer. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant, while criticizing the judgment of conviction, claimed that the prosecutrix had love affair with a boy and since her marriage was to be performed, she herself went away. She has falsely implicated the accused. The birth certificate (Exh.28) is not properly proved; it should have been part of the investigation papers. The age of the prosecutrix, oscillating between 14 to 16 years, itself is a doubtful situation. The accused has not applied any force to the proxecutrix. She has falsely implicated the accused. The birth certificate (Exh.28) is not properly proved; it should have been part of the investigation papers. The age of the prosecutrix, oscillating between 14 to 16 years, itself is a doubtful situation. The accused has not applied any force to the proxecutrix. There is nothing to demonstrate that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her. Evidence of PW No. 8. Sunil Aitwar is shaky; he did not take help of local Police and without any reason at midnight, allegedly, arrested the accused and the victim. He was expected to come with lady constable but did not comply. There is no seizure of the motor cycle. Evidence of PW No.4 Narayan, tractor driver, should not be believed. Learned Counsel criticized conduct of the investigating officer (PW No.10) to point that he did not visit the places of movement of the accused with prosecutrix. He did not investigate with headmaster of the school. There was delay of three days in lodging the FIR dated 5/6/2011. He questioned, for a long stay of 14 days between the accused and the prosecutrix, could there be only a single intercourse. Lastly, he suggests, since the appellant is 19 years old, if the Court records finding of guilt, benefit of Probation of Offenders Act be extended to him. 7. Learned A.P.P. supported the evidence and judgment. According to her, in the light of the legal position, the delay in lodging the FIR in terms of Section 154 Cr.P.C. is not material. It will not vitiate the prosecution. She asserts, victim was a minor and she was carried by the accused / appellant. The medical evidence, along with Chemical Analyzer's report establish violence to the prosecutrix. 8. Let me first deal with the evidence relating to age of the prosecutrix. PW No.5 in her evidence quotes her date of birth as 28.10.1997. The entire tenor of the cross examination was about capacity of the prosecutrix to perform sex or about menstruation period she has undergone and she had love affair with a boy. Consequently, she requested the accused / appellant to take her on motor cycle to Paithan. The defence did not dispute the date of birth; at least from PW No.5. The entire tenor of the cross examination was about capacity of the prosecutrix to perform sex or about menstruation period she has undergone and she had love affair with a boy. Consequently, she requested the accused / appellant to take her on motor cycle to Paithan. The defence did not dispute the date of birth; at least from PW No.5. The unwary father PW No.3 narrated the plight faced by the family members; his poor financial condition, working as a Labourer on a brick kiln and making relentless search in the night of 2nd June, 2011, lodging report dated 5.6.2011. He has, below Exh.28, produced birth certificate showing date of birth of the prosecutrix to be 28.10.1997. This is indeed established by PW No.9 Jalinder, Headmaster, by the school admission register of relevant period and the entries in the admission register at Sr.No.24 which showed name of the prosecutrix, showing her date of birth as 28.10.1997. He has placed authenticated copy of such register. Original register is marked Exh. 45 while its copy is at Exh.46. Thus, the birth certificate produced by the father Exh.28 and the corresponding recorded proved by PW No.9, unequivocally establish that the prosecutrix was born on 28.10.1997. The legal position is, even if school leaving certificate is produced, it can be considered inspite of old medical certificate (Bhoop Ram vs State Of U.P. ( AIR 1989 SC 1329 )). The Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969, provides presumption in respect of a birth certificate issued by competent authority, under the Statute. The certificate in question at Exh.28 was by the Chief Officer of the Nagar Parishad, Paithan, issued on 11.11.1997. This was issued in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the said Act. The register maintained by the public authorities, carries a presumptive value and to repeat, the certificate establishes the date of birth of the prosecutrix unequivocally. 9. If the hurdle of age of the prosecutrix is removed then, any activity of sex, either consensual or otherwise, by and between her and the appellant becomes insignificant. The prosecutrix was carried from her abode on a motor cycle by the accused / appellant. The entire topography of movement is narrated by her. The affair of sex at Pune is dated 8.6.2011 when she was taken to a field near Pune Station and was forced to undergo sex. The prosecutrix was carried from her abode on a motor cycle by the accused / appellant. The entire topography of movement is narrated by her. The affair of sex at Pune is dated 8.6.2011 when she was taken to a field near Pune Station and was forced to undergo sex. Unfortunately, the learned defence Counsel was not controlled from questions which were not expected to be asked to the prosecutrix such as her experience in sex, visualizing male organ and how she felt after the sex. She was even suggested, rather recklessly that, she herself had put a wooden article at her private part and caused injury before 2nd June, 2011. This was an injury to the pride of the prosecutrix and it virtually bleeds feeling and a torture. Her trauma was made a game plan to harass. 10. The history narrated by the prosecutrix is cemented by PW No.7 Dr.Upendra who had an occasion to clinically examine the prosecutrix on 16.6.2011 at 6.50 p.m., in presence of patient's mother and LPC Pathan. Medical certificates is at Exhs. 36 and 39. The development of gender organs was normal. There was absence of semen or presence of hair on her apparels. Hymen was ruptured, tears were old. Her age radio logically, according to him, was oscillating between 16 and 16 and half years. Her blood group is "O". Nothing fruitful could be extracted from the cross examination of this witness. The apparels of the victim were stained with blood in the middle portion which appeared to be washed (C.A. report Exh.52C). No semen was detected, however, the blood, which was detected on Jangia Paijama (ladies), top / shirt (ladies), Odhani was detected to be of human origin. Blood on Jangia of the prosecutrix could be analyzed to be of "O" group which matched to the blood group established by PW No.7 Dr.Upendra in tune with Exh.53C. The blood group of the accused / appellant at Exh.54C is of "B" origin. 11. The delay to which reference is given by the learned Counsel in the above scenario of facts, is not fatal to the prosecution. It is not that the complainant father desired to weave any additional material to have a stiff fabric of evidence against the accused / appellant. He had suspicion of accused / appellant enticing and alluring his daughter and kidnapping her which has been reflected in the FIR. It is not that the complainant father desired to weave any additional material to have a stiff fabric of evidence against the accused / appellant. He had suspicion of accused / appellant enticing and alluring his daughter and kidnapping her which has been reflected in the FIR. It was only subsequent inquiry, which revealed of sexual abuse and, consequently, further statement was recorded. The so called delay of three days, in the situation, is properly explained. Radiological plates conducted through the channel of PW No.7 are on record. It cannot be said that the medical report produced by PW No.7 does not support prosecution theory of rape. In a matter of such character, wherein the prosecutrix is 14 years old, the question of non application of force by the accused has no relevance. It cannot be said that there is no proof that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. 12. The criticism in respect of the activities carried by PW No.8 Sunil Aitwar needs to be seen in proper perspective. Though he did not take assistance of local police, however, it will not minimize the preliminary inquiries made by him. He escorted the prosecutrix. It was not under force or duress or it could not be branded to be a custody or fetters; it was to ensure her safe passage to her parental abode. Want of seizure of motor cycle, though repeatedly can-assed, will not mitigate the gravity of the matter as PW No.5 was suggested of moving with the accused/ appellant on his motor cycle. The criticism in respect of not visiting places of crime by PW No.10 Tulshiram Dhumal, Investigating officer, may be correct, however, not visiting such places has not difused or deflated the text and texture of evidence narrated by PW No.5. 13. The last limb of submission of extending benefit of probation to the accused / appellant, needs only to be discarded as it is heinous offence against the society. Legal position in this behalf is, that exercise of jurisdiction ought to be just and judicious; it should not shake faith of the society and not to create a situation of traumatic event and mockery to the esteem of the prosecutrix. 14. Taking survey of the facts, I do not see any error in appreciation of evidence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and recording conviction against the appellant. Appeal dismissed.