JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J. The appellant is aggrieved by his conviction under Section 376, 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and has been sentenced as under: Sr. Offence under No. Section 1. 363 IPC Sentenced Imposed. Simple imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine the convicted person shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one years. 2. 366 IPC Simple imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine convicted person shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 3. one year. 376 IPC Simple imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.15000/-. In default of Payment of fine convicted person shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.8.2008 at around 11.30 A.M. accused kidnapped minor prosecutrix (PW3) from the lawful guardianship of her parents and grand-mother from Depot Bazar, Dharamshala and took her to Kangra and Chetru without the consent of her parents with the intention of compelling her to marry him and committed the rape with her during the intervening period upto 20.8.2008 when both the accused and the prosecutrix were produced before the police by the parents of the accused. The learned trial Court, considers the statement of PW-3, prosecutrix who states that she was born on 4.9.1992 and has two brothers. Her father is mechanic by profession and was running business of workshop at Civil Bazar, Dharamshala and her mother was posted as peon in the PNB. She had studied upto 8th class in Adarash Sanatan Dharam School whereafter she tried for higher education but she did not succeed. Her parents were residing in Sakoh. Her father had sustained injuries in an accident and was required to be taken to Dharamshala hospital for regular treatment. She became friendly with the accused who used to take her father in his taxi to the hospital. On 19.8.2008 at around 11 a.m. when she came out of the house to throw ruined/spilled milk on the road, the accused met her. He told her to meet her at Sham Nagar road, whereupon, she informed her grand other that she would come after some time. She states that she was forcibly taken in the vehicle to Kangra, from Kangra to Matour. He told her to meet her at Sham Nagar road, whereupon, she informed her grand other that she would come after some time. She states that she was forcibly taken in the vehicle to Kangra, from Kangra to Matour. From Matour accused took her Sudhed and dragged her to a cattle shed where he had forcibly sexual intercourse with her. On the next day they went to Depot Bazar where one lady met to them and thereafter they went to Tanda Medical College. During the previous night they slept in the taxi of the accused. On 21.8.2008 she was taken to Nagrota to the house of the accused. His father came after some time and his parents took them to the police station. She was medically examined by PW-13 Dr. Harrop Kaur, Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala and proved her MLC Ex.PW13/A. Her clothes, salwar Ex.P.1, shirt Ex.P2, undershirt Ex.P3 and bra Ex.P4 were taken into possession. She was cross-examined, when she states that accused used to visit her house for about the last four years to take her father to the hospital and during this period, she developed intimacy with the accused. They used to roam around together. She says that she wanted to marry the accused. They were regularly communicating on the landline telephone. She admitted the suggestion that he used to go with the accused in his taxi prior to the incident, though she denied the suggestion that on the date of occurrence she went with him of her free will and consent. She asked the accused to drop her near Sham Nagar but he did not allow her to alight from the taxi. She states that she was dragged to the cattle shed where she was raped. She had been warned by the accused that in case she raises an alarm in public he would finish her family members. She then states that she did not try to come to Dharamshala from Medical College, Tanda because her clothes were dirty. On 20.8.2008 the accused again raped her in the vehicle. At that time, she was menstruating. She has stated that her parents did not want to marry her with the accused. She admits that she did not raise any alarm at Depot bazaar because all the shops were closed at that time. On 20.8.2008 the accused again raped her in the vehicle. At that time, she was menstruating. She has stated that her parents did not want to marry her with the accused. She admits that she did not raise any alarm at Depot bazaar because all the shops were closed at that time. She was dropped in the market 10 a.m. and came back after 10 minutes when some lady, who was residing in the vicinity of her house (colony) who was driven to Tanda Medical College. She admits that many students used to go to the school at 9 to 10 a.m. She also states that at Sudhed the accused had gone to buy some biscuits and she was alone in the taxi. She states that no person came to her rescue when she raised an alarm at Medical College Tanda, when the lady had gone to the hospital, though many persons were present there. She did not narrate this incident to anybody there. On 20.8.2008 they were roaming around various places. She admitted that both of them had promised each other to marry and they loved each other. 3. PW-1 Smt. Sunita Devi, mother of the prosecutrix says that she was posted as peon in PNB, Bank and her husband was running a shop of mechanic of repairing motorcycle etc. The accused had been engaged by them to drive her husband to the hospital for regular routine check up. On the fateful day she went to the bank and at around 1 P.M. her son Mohit informed her that prosecutrix was not at home. She immediately took leave and rushed home. She inquired from her relations and acquaintance but she was not found there. On 20th August, 2008 they informed the police. On 21.8.2008 they were informed by the police that the prosecutrix was in the police station. Thereafter they (she and her husband) went to the police station where she found the prosecutrix. She had been informed by her daughter that she had been raped. She admits that the accused was a frequent visitor to her house and it is during this period that the prosecutrix developed intimacy with her. She also admits that during this period they used to roam around without any protest from the parents. She also admits the friendship of the prosecutrix with the accused. She admits that the accused was a frequent visitor to her house and it is during this period that the prosecutrix developed intimacy with her. She also admits that during this period they used to roam around without any protest from the parents. She also admits the friendship of the prosecutrix with the accused. PW-2 Shri Santosh Kumar, father of the prosecutrix corroborates these facts. PW-4 Smt. Shanti Devi, grand mother of the prosecutrix says that on the fateful day, the prosecutrix told her that she was going to the toilet to ease herself. She also states that she had seen the prosecutrix while going in the taxi with the accused. 4. Now I advert to the statement of Dr. Mohan Singh (M.O.), Zonal Hospital Dharamshala who examined the accused and found him to be physically normal. In cross-examination he says that semen found on the underwear of the accused has not been matched with his DNA. He did not find any injury on the body of the accused. 5. PW-13 Dr. Harroop Kaur, Medical officer, Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, has examined the prosecutrix and proved on record MLC Ex.PW13/A. She states in her cross-examination that the prosecutrix had told her that she had eloped with the intention to marry the accused. No DNA test was conducted. At the time when she examined the prosecutrix she was menstruating. No age determination test was carried out. She had opined that the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse. 6. Adverting to the age of the prosecutrix, PW8 Smt. Neelam Kumari, Head Mistress in Sanatan Dharam Sabha School, Dharamshala, states that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 4.9.1992. Certificate Ex. PW8/A is correct as per the original register brought by her. She had not brought the admission form of the prosecutrix which contains the signature of the person who had brought this student for admission. The name of the prosecutrix’s father is Santokh Kumar Bhati and his father’s name has not been mentioned in the Register, which does not contain any entry about the fact as to whether the Municipal record was produced to corroborate her date of birth. She admits that in respect of admission of Shila Mehara and prosecutrix there is tampering in the column of date of birth. PW-9 Sh. She admits that in respect of admission of Shila Mehara and prosecutrix there is tampering in the column of date of birth. PW-9 Sh. Sunil Kumar, Draughtsman in Municipal Committee, Dharamshala, has produced the original birth register pertaining to the year July, 1999 to November, 1992. He states that birth certificate Ex.PW9/A as prepared by him is correct according to the original. He admits in cross-examination that the parents did not disclose the name of the prosecutrix which is entered in the register on the basis of which Ex.PW9/A was prepared. This entry was made at serial No.1132 in the register and this number has been mentioned in Ex. PW9/A. Then he admits that from serial No. 1131 to 1135 the name of the child born has not been mentioned. He also admits that the profession and education qualification and age of the father of the prosecutrix have not been mentioned in the concerned columns. Then he states that “it is correct to suggest that the name of Radhika Bhati is mentioned in the column of name at the instance of police and I have no personal information in respect of the fact that the name mentioned therein is correct. Jagdish Chand is a peon in the office of M.C. Dharamshala. Jagdish Chand has signed Ex. PW9/B in the presence at the instance of police. I do not know Amarjeet Singh nor did he signed in my presence. It is correct to suggest that I cannot say that this birth certificate is that of Radhika Bhati or any other girl. Since the name of Radhika Bhati had been entered at the instance of police.” This is the entirety of the evidence which requires consideration. 7. It is this evidence upon which the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the accused, primarily on the statement of the prosecutrix as also accepting her age to be 16 years. The learned trial Court holds that the statement of the prosecutrix is trustworthy, cogent, reliable and inspires confidence. The learned trial Court holds that it must be alert and alive to the sensitive responsibility imposed by the law upon the Court in the case of sexual harassment/offences. Adverting to Section 114(A) of the Evidence Act, the learned trial Court holds that the statement of the prosecutrix is corroborated by the medical evidence and therefore conviction under Section 376 must follow as a course. Adverting to Section 114(A) of the Evidence Act, the learned trial Court holds that the statement of the prosecutrix is corroborated by the medical evidence and therefore conviction under Section 376 must follow as a course. It is these findings challenged by the appellant in this appeal. 8. It has been submitted by learned counsel Shri Anoop Chitkara, who is appearing as amicus curiae that (a) that there is no evidence with respect to the fact that as to whether rape has been committed or not. In this eventuality, no offence under Section 376 is made out; (b) this submission is based on the facts as narrated by the prosecutrix herself stating that for two days she kept roaming around with him through out Dharamshala, Kangra, back to Dharamshala and Medical College, Tanda. At no point of time, she had raised any alarm/hue and cry and never informed anybody about the fact that she had been kidnapped and subjected to rape though she had ample opportunity to do so even when she was left alone and traveled with a lady in the taxi; (c) that even if it is believed as the prosecutrix states that she did raise a hue and cry it is not possible, in that event that on the morning of 20.8.2008 she was dropped at Depot Bazar, which is in the centre of Dharamshala town, where she stood alone for more than 15 minutes alone when the accused had gone to pick up a lady, who was residing in the same colony as that of the prosecutrix and then three of them travelled to Medical College/hospital, Tanda. Even at this juncture no attempt was made by the prosecutrix to tell that lady that she has been forcibly kidnapped by the accused or she was being detained by the accused against her will; (d) that there were number of school children, who were walking at that particular point of time in the Depot Bazar on way to school and (e) that the grand mother of the prosecutrix Smt. Shanti Devi, PW4 admits that she had seen the prosecutrix going with the accused and had informed everybody about this fact. In this eventuality, the parents of the accused instead of tracing her and the accused ought to have lodged the report straight away against the accused. In this eventuality, the parents of the accused instead of tracing her and the accused ought to have lodged the report straight away against the accused. Learned counsel further submits that statement of PW8 Smt. Neelam and PW 9 Shri Sunil Kumar with respect to the age of the prosecutrix cannot be accepted when coupled with the statement of prosecutrix that she was more than 17 years of age in her cross-examination which does not even established the case of kidnapping. In this eventuality, no case of kidnapping could be attributed to the accused. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submits that it is now well settled that the statement of prosecutrix itself can form the basis of conviction without any corroboration. In particular, he refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aman Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1497 , State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Asha Ram, 2006 Cri. L.J. 139 and Naresh Kumar vs. State of H.P., 2006 Cri.L.J. 1985. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that circumstances proved on record are such that the mere statement of prosecutrix cannot be relied upon. In particular, he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2006) 10 SCC 92 , Narayan alias Naran vs. State of Rajasthan (2007) 6 SCC 465 , to urge that though corroboration is not the rule but if there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix as also the medical evidence, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of prosecutrix alone. In particular he emphasizes that in Dinesh Jaiswal vs. State of M.P., 2010 Cri.L.J. 1917 and Abbas Ahmad Choudhary vs. State of Assam, 2010 Cri. L.J. 2060,the Supreme Court holds that there is no presumption that the prosecutrix is always telling the truth. In Dinesh Jaswal’s case the Court holds: “5. Mr. C.D. Singh has however placed reliance on Moti Lal’s case (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 882 : 2008 AIR SCW 4846) (supra) to contend that the evidence of the prosecutrix was liable to be believed save in exceptional circumstances. In Dinesh Jaswal’s case the Court holds: “5. Mr. C.D. Singh has however placed reliance on Moti Lal’s case (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 882 : 2008 AIR SCW 4846) (supra) to contend that the evidence of the prosecutrix was liable to be believed save in exceptional circumstances. There can be no quarrel with this proposition (and it has been so emphasized by this Court time and again) but to hold that a prosecutrix must be believed irrespective of the improbabilities in her story is an argument that can never be accepted. The test always is as to whether the given story prima facie inspires confidence. We are of the opinion that the present matter is indeed an exceptional one. 6. As already mentioned above, in our opinion, the story given by the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. We thus allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgments and direct that the appellant be acquitted.” (pp. 1919) (Emphasis added) 11. To similar effect is the ratio of the judgment passed in Abbas Ahmad’s case. Learned counsel also submits that in Radhu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 12 SCC 57 , the Supreme Court rules that if there are inconsistencies and major discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecutrix, no conviction can be sustained on such evidence. 12. Two other decisions may be noticed on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In Pritam Chand Vs. State of H.P. Current L.J. Supp (2008) 51, this Court considered the Supreme Court’s precedent as noticed supra and holds inter alia that: “23. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances above, especially the contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix and her brother, the unnatural behaviour of the brother and the mother, the medical evidence which shows that there are no signs of struggle or injuries on the private part of the minor prosecutrix and last but not the least the fact that the vaginal swab contains no human semen, in my opinion it would be highly improper to convict the accused on the oral statement of the prosecutrix and her brother. The statements are not corroborated by the other evidence but in fact grave doubts regarding the correctness of the statements arise because of these inherent contradictions. The attending circumstances and other evidence in fact shatter the case of the prosecution. The statements are not corroborated by the other evidence but in fact grave doubts regarding the correctness of the statements arise because of these inherent contradictions. The attending circumstances and other evidence in fact shatter the case of the prosecution. The learned trial Court has based the conviction only on the ground that there is no reason to disbelieve the child especially a girl of such tender age. This may be correct but in view of the various inconsistencies as pointed out above I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.” (at page 57-58) He also places a reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Shanker, (2000) 9 SCC 161 to urge that even if the facts are accepted as they are at best consensual sex is established. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raju and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008)15 SCC 133, where the Supreme Court holds, after reiterating its decision in State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996)2 SCC 384 and Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam (1998)8 SCC 635 , that while evaluating the evidence of the prosecutrix it must be borne in mind that no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a statement against her honour that she has been sexually assaulted which would be a serious cause of humiliation and social ostracism. The Court thereafter proceeds: “10. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on a part with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest weight and we respectfully agree with them, but at the same time they cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which comes before the court. 11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes thegreatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. 11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes thegreatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration. 12. Reference has been made in Gurmit Singh case to the amendments in 1983 to Section 375 and 376 of the Penal Code making the penal provisions relating to rape more stringent, also to Section 114-A of the Evidence Act with respect to a presumption to be raised with regard to allegations of consensual sex in a case of alleged rape. It is however significant that Section 113-A and 113-B too were inserted in the Evidence Act by the same amendment by which certain presumptions in cases of abetment of suicide and dowry death have been raised against the accused. These two sections, thus, raise a clear presumption in favour of the prosecution but no similar presumption with respect to rape is visualized as the presumption under Section 114-A is extremely restricted in its applicability. This clearly shows that insofar as allegations of rape are concerned, the evidence of a prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should, without exception, be taken as the gospel truth. Additionally, her statement can, at best, be adjudged on the principle that ordinarily no injured witness would tell a lie or implicate a person falsely. We believe that it is under these principles that this case and others, such as this one, need to be examined.” (at p. 141) 14. It is these principles which are to be considered for seeking minimal corroboration in the facts of the present case. We believe that it is under these principles that this case and others, such as this one, need to be examined.” (at p. 141) 14. It is these principles which are to be considered for seeking minimal corroboration in the facts of the present case. I would not treat the prosecutrix as an accomplice but look for some factual corroboration in the light of what the prosecutrix states. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutix and the accused were known to each other and had developed intimacy. It is the case of the prosecution that the grand mother of the prosecutrix had seen her leaving with the accused on the fateful day. She also admits that she did not inform anyone about this fact. The evidence then again is that both of them were produced before the police by the parents of the accusedThe facts considered that (a) the prosecutrix was with the accused day and night, slept in the car, travelled to Tanda with a lady residing in the colony of the prosecutrix, being left alone in Depot Bazar, Dharamshala for a considerable time where there is number of school children, not seeking any help at any point of time when she had ample opportunity to do so as also that the grand mother of the prosecutrix had seen both of them going together, when considered in isolation or together, do call for some corroboration to support what the prosecutrix says and not merely to accept her statement in toto as it is. Then again there is no forensic evidence to establish that the accused had committed rape on her. Even the statement of Dr. Harroop Kaur, PW13 does not establish this. 15. Adverting to the evidence of the age of the prosecutrix, the case of the appellant is that she herself disclosed her age to be more than 17 years and that the evidence of two witnesses, namely, PW8 Mrs. Neelam Kumar, Headmistress in Sanatan Dharam Sabha School, Dharamshala and PW9 Shri Sunil Kumar, Draftsman in Municipal Committee Dharamshala cannot be relied upon. Adverting to the statement of PW-9 Shri Sunil Kumar he admits in cross-examination that he was asked to fill in the name of the prosecutrix by the police. That speaks volume for its reliability. Mrs. Neelam Kumari, PW8 is not certain as to what would be the date of birth of the prosecutrix. Adverting to the statement of PW-9 Shri Sunil Kumar he admits in cross-examination that he was asked to fill in the name of the prosecutrix by the police. That speaks volume for its reliability. Mrs. Neelam Kumari, PW8 is not certain as to what would be the date of birth of the prosecutrix. She admits interpolation in the entry of the date of birth of the prosecutrix. 16. In Satpal Singh versus State of Haryana, 2010 (8) SCC 714 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the aspect of entry in public record, holds: “20. A document is admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called as `Evidence Act') being a public document if prepared by a government official in the exercise of his official duty. However, the question does arise as what is the authenticity of the said entry for the reason that admissibility of a document is one thing and probity of it is different. 21. In State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Radha Krishna Singh AIR 1983 SC 684 , this Court dealt with a similar contention and held as under:- “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.. . . . .(SCC p.138, para 40) 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 butunder the authority of a Statute, its probative value would indeed be very high so as to be entitled to great weight. (SCC p. 143, para 53) 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. (SCC p.143, para 53)” 22. 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. State of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 326 ; 14 Ram Murti Vs. The aforesaid legal proposition stands fortified by the judgments of this Court in Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 326 ; 14 Ram Murti Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1970 SC 1029 ; Dayaram. Vs. Dawalatshah , AIR 1971 SC 681 ; Harpal Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361 ; Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 584 ; Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand (2008) 13 SCC 133 ; Desh Raj Vs. Bodh Raj AIR 2008 SC 632 ; and Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh @Chhotu 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. Such entries may be in any public document, i.e. school register, voter list or family register prepared under the Rules and Regulations etc. in force, and may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act as held in Mohd. Ikram Hussain Vs. The State of U.P. AIR 1964 SC 1625 ; and 15 Santenu Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1999 SC 1587 . 23. There may be conflicting entries in the official document and in such a situation, the entry made at a later stage has to be accepted and relied upon. (Vide Shri Raja Durga Singh of Vs. Tholu, AIR 1963 SC 361 ). 24. While dealing with a similar issue in Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1796 , this Court held as under:- “15. ………..To render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions must be satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record, secondly, it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act, but entry regarding to the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded.” 25. A Constitution Bench of this Court, while dealing with a similar issue in Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha AIR 1965 SC 282 , observed as under:- (AIR p.286, para 18) “The reason why an entry made by a public servant in a public or other official book, register, or record stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact has been made relevant is that when a public servant makes it himself in the discharge of his official duty, the probability of its being truly and correctly recorded is high. That probability is reduced to a minimum when the public servant himself is illiterate and has to depend on somebody else to make the entry. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the High Court is right in holding that the entry made in an official record maintained by the illiterate Chowkidar, by somebody else at his request does not come within Section 35 of the Evidence Act.” 26. In Vishnu Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283 , while dealing with a similar issue, this Court observed that very often parents furnish incorrect date of birth to the school authorities to make up the age in order to secure admission for their children. For determining the age of the child, 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 un- impeccable 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. 27. Thus, the entry in respect of age of the child seeking admission, made in the school register by semi-literate chowkidar at the instance of a person who came along with the child having no personal knowledge of the correct date of birth, cannot be relied upon. 28. 27. Thus, the entry in respect of age of the child seeking admission, made in the school register by semi-literate chowkidar at the instance of a person who came along with the child having no personal knowledge of the correct date of birth, cannot be relied upon. 28. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized that the entry made in the official record by an official or person authorised in performance of an official duty is admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the party may still ask the Court/Authority to examine its probative value. The authenticity of the entry would depend as on whose instruction/information such entry stood recorded and what was his source of information. Thus, entry in school register/certificate requires to be proved in accordance with law. Standard of proof for the same remains as in any other civil and criminal case.” (p. 721-724). 16. In Madan Mohan Singh & Ors versus Rajni Kant & Anr., (2010)9 SCC 209 the Court holds: “17. In State of Bihar Vs. Radha Krishna Singh, AIR 1983 SC 684 , this Court dealt with a similar contention and held as under:- “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. State of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 326 ; Ram Murti Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1970 SC 1029 ; Dayaram Vs. The aforesaid legal proposition stands fortified by the judgments of this Court in Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 326 ; Ram Murti Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1970 SC 1029 ; Dayaram Vs. Dawalatshah, AIR 1971 SC 681 ; Harpal Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361 ; Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 584 ; Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand (2008) 13 SCC 133 ; Desh Raj Vs. Bodh Raj AIR 2008 SC 632 ; and Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh @Chhotu 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. Such entries may be in any public document, i.e. school register, voter list or family register prepared under the Rules and Regulations etc. in force, and may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act as held in Mohd. Ikram Hussain Vs. The State of U.P.. AIR 1964 SC 1625 ; and Santenu Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1999 SC 1587 . 20. So far as the entries made in the official record byan official or person authorised in performance of official duties are concerned, they may be admissible under Section 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 entry 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 un-impeccable documents. The entry 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 un-impeccable documents. In case the date of birth depicted in the school register/certificate stands belied by the un-impeccable 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 AIR 1965 SC 282 ; Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1796 ; Vishnu Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283 ; and Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana JT 2010 (7) SC 500). 22. If a person wants to rely on a particular date of birth and wants to press a document in service, he has to prove its authenticity in terms of Section 32(5) of the Evidence Act by examining the person having special means of knowledge, authenticity of date, time etc. mentioned therein. (Vide: Updesh Kumar Vs. Prithvi Singh, (2001) 2 SCC 524 ; and State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh, AIR 2005 SC 1868 ).” (p.215-217). 17. Learned counsel Mr. Anoop Chitkara, who is appearing as amicus curiae for the appellant submits that this is not a case of kidnapping or taking the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship from her parents. He submits that the age of the prosecutrix has been established of her being a minor rather evidence on record clearly proves that she was travelling with the accused freely and willingly, so much so, slept in the car and every opportunity available to her to free herself was never availed of even when she was alone. Her statement that she raised alarm in the hospital and nobody responded cannot be accepted as evidence on record in cross-examination of the prosecutrix is that there were number of people in the hospital. I do not find that it can be believed that there were no person(s) present in the Medical College/Hospital, Tanda when the prosecutrix purportedly raised an alarm and she admits that there were a number of persons present. I do not find that it can be believed that there were no person(s) present in the Medical College/Hospital, Tanda when the prosecutrix purportedly raised an alarm and she admits that there were a number of persons present. It is in these circumstances, I find that prosecution has been unable to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even in the expert evidence i.e. report of Forensic Science Laboratory, there was no match of the semen found on the clothes of prosecutrix with that of the accused. 18. In these circumstances, the judgment of the trial Court is quashed and set aside and the appellant/accused is directed to set at liberty forthwith, if not, required in any other case by the police. This Court places on record its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Sh. Anoop Chitkara, learned amicus curiae.