JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. 1. The appellant challenges his conviction under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix PW-1 stated that in the year 2010 she was studying in KLM International School, Pathankot in 10th class and the accused was her Hindi teacher. She does not remember the exact date, but in December, 2010, the accused propositioned her. He praised her looks and physical characteristics. He was also her guide in the annual function. She has stated that during this function, he took her to the media room where some articles were kept and tried to rape her, which she resisted, since it would ruin her life and also tarnish his reputation. He threatened her with dire consequences that he would kill her and set her house on fire. She states that the accused committed rape on her on that day. She then states that on 16.1.2011 at night when she was sleeping in her room in her house somebody knocked her door; she thought that it might be her parents and opened the door, when the accused entered in her room and raped her. At that time her parents were sleeping in another room. She narrates that the accused had again threatened her that if she disclosed this incident to anybody he would put her naked photographs on the face book. When she tried to resist, he beat her up. He also threatened her that he would ruin her life by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire. On 8.4.2011 when her mother's sister (mausi) Savita PW-8 and her paternal aunt Banita PW-9 came to her house and all family members were present, she was asked to speak the truth as to why she was perplexed upon which she disclosed that the accused had committed rape on her many times. She along with her mother PW-2 Smt. Ria went to the police station Indora where they lodged FIR Ext. PW-2/A. She was then taken for medical examination. Thereafter the police came to her house and inspected the room where rape was committed and took into possession the bed sheet etc. In cross examination, she states that she along with her parents, brother and grand-father live together in the same house. PW-2/A. She was then taken for medical examination. Thereafter the police came to her house and inspected the room where rape was committed and took into possession the bed sheet etc. In cross examination, she states that she along with her parents, brother and grand-father live together in the same house. She states that her grand-father used to sleep in a separate room while her parents and brother used to sleep in one room and her bed room was separate. All bed rooms open in the lobby of the house. She has admitted that their house is surrounded by a wall and by 20-25 houses. She does not know the distance of her school from the house. She admitted that the accused was a boarding school teacher. She admits letter Ext.D1 which is a love letter written by her, but she states that it was written at the instance of the accused under pressure. She also admits that her mother had noticed the presence of the accused in their house during night time. She again admits that she and the accused used to remain together from 10 PM to 4 AM. 2. PW-2 Ria mother of the prosecutrix states that her daughter is aged 15 years and is a student of class tenth in KLM International School, Siuanti (Pathankot). She used to travel to her school by bus. She states that the accused was her Hindi teacher and had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her daughter. She states that the prosecutrix told her that the accused used to visit her house and committed sexual intercourse with her. She admits that she herself had seen the accused when he used to visit her house and this fact was disclosed by her to the grandfather of the prosecutrix. 3. PW-3 Rajesh Pal Rana the father of the prosecutrix affirms the fact that she was a student of 10th class in KLM International School, Siuanti at Pathankot. He says that on 8.4.2011 when Smt. Savita PW-8 (maternal aunt of the prosecutrix) and Smt. Banita PW-9 (paternal aunt of the prosecutrix) noticed that the prosecutrix was under depression, they asked and persuaded her to disclose the reason for her depression. He states that the accused was her Hindi teacher and had raped her. He along with his father and other family members live together in the same house. He states that the accused was her Hindi teacher and had raped her. He along with his father and other family members live together in the same house. The family knew about the relations of his daughter with the accused, he and his relatives had also inquired from the prosecutrix about this relationship. 4. PW-4 Dr. Neerja Gupta examined the prosecutrix on 8.4.2011. On examination she found some injuries on her left eye, left upper arm and right upper arm. On the basis of these injuries, she issued MLC Ext.PW-4/B and her opinion was that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. PW-5 Dr. Raman Sharma Radiologist opines that radiological age of the prosecutrix was 17 to 18 years. 5. Cross examination of PW-7 Narinder Singh maternal uncle of the prosecutrix is only to the extent that he admits that parents of the prosecutrix had discussed about the relationship of the prosecutrix with the accused and it is only after deep contemplation that FIR was registered. PW-8 Savita, PW-9 Banita state that between 1.4.2011 to 7.4.2011 they along with the parents of the prosecutrix visited the temple at Damtal where they met accused Vikas. 6. PW-10 Shri Sudhir Lalotra, who works as a teacher in the school, states in his cross examination that the accused was In-charge of the boarding and used to reside in the hostel of the school, his duties are for 24 hours a day. Security personnel are present in the school campus to guard the teachers and children and there is a fool proof security system with a very remote chance of anyone misbehaving with the students. 7. The date of birth of the prosecutrix has been proved by PW-15 Inspector Karam Singh who has tendered in evidence Ext. PW-15/G stating the date of birth of the prosecutrix to be 17th April, 1996. 8. DW-1 Satpal school clerk at KLM International School proved Ext. DW1/A showing that boarding teacher has to stay in school complex for 24 hours and record does not show that he (accused) had left school during this period. In cross examination, he admits that the register has not been certified by the Principal. 9. Now I advert to letter Ext. D1 which has been proved by the defence to urge that it is full of admiration for the accused. In cross examination, he admits that the register has not been certified by the Principal. 9. Now I advert to letter Ext. D1 which has been proved by the defence to urge that it is full of admiration for the accused. The letter goes to state that she was deeply impressed and comforted by his company and his decision to leave the school was not proper as both the prosecutrix and the accused love to each other and admonishes the accused that he has no right to take any unilateral/independent decision. Letter is self speaking and I need not go into it further with the actual words used which not only express her right to take decisions for him but also admonishes him. 10. On the question of rape committed in the school, what I find is that evidence of the prosecution as also of the defence is that the accused was a boarding school in-charge and in this eventuality, he was to remain present in the school for 24 hours. How he managed to commit sexual intercourse in the school when there were so many persons present at the school function is not proved. I find from the evidence that allegations against him that he used to come to the house of prosecutrix for sexual intercourse in her room, which was surrounded by the rooms of her parents and grandfather, have also not been proved by the prosecution. The allegations of a school girl having sex in the house during late hours when her parents and grandparents are present in the house and sleeping in the adjoining rooms cannot be accepted. It has also come in evidence that the parents of the prosecutrix were also aware about her relationship with the accused. The settled principle of law is that statement of the prosecutrix cannot be disbelieved as urged before me. (See: Raju and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133 and State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 and Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635 ). 11. But 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. 11. But 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. There can be no quarrel with this proposition (and it has been so emphasised 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) In Radhu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 12 SCC 57 , the Supreme Court also rules that if there are inconsistencies and major discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecutrix, no conviction can be sustained on such evidence. 12. My attention has been drawn by learned Additional Advocate General to the decision of the Supreme Court in Raju and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133 where after reiterating the decision in State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 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. 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 the greatest 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 visualised as the presumption under Section 114-A is extremely restricted in its applicability. These two sections, thus, raise a clear presumption in favour of the prosecution but no similar presumption with respect to rape is visualised 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) 13. Even if the evidence of the prosecution is accepted in totality, it merely shows that the accused had been visiting the house of the prosecutrix during night hours where they were having physical intimacy. In the context when the room of the prosecutrix was adjoining the rooms of her parents and grandparents, it becomes difficult to believe that she was being raped. In the context of the Indian Society, it would be impossible to accept that the family would allow this kind of physical intimacy in their own house with a school going girl. 14. It is also submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that merely because the act is consensual the accused cannot be acquitted as according to the prosecution, she was 15 years old on the date of offence whereas PW-5 Dr. Raman Sharma opined her age 17-18 years. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that since Ext. PW-15/G has not been proved by the prosecution in accordance with law, hence the radiological age of the prosecutrix is to be accepted in this case. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that this is a public document and should be per se accepted as proved. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant then submits that this certificate cannot be treated at par as the documents tendered in evidence under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Merely tendering a document without proving its authenticity, according to the learned counsel, does not prove its contents. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant then submits that this certificate cannot be treated at par as the documents tendered in evidence under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Merely tendering a document without proving its authenticity, according to the learned counsel, does not prove its contents. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satpal Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 714 holding : "21. In State of Bihar and Others vs. Radha Krishna Singh and Others, AIR 1983 SC 684 , this Court dealt with a similar contention and held as under:- "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...... 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. 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." 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 ; Ram Murti vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1970 SC 1029 ; Dayaram and Others vs. Dawalatshah and Another, AIR 1971 SC 681 ; Harpal Singh and Another 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 and Another, (2008) 13 SCC 133 ; Desh Raj vs. Bodh Raj, AIR 2008 SC 632 and Ram Suresh Singh vs. Prabhat Singh @ Chhotu Singh and Another, (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. and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1625 and 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 Solon vs. Tholu and Others, 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:- "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 and Others, AIR 1965 SC 282 , observed as under:- "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 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. 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 summerised 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. 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." (at pp. 721 to 724) 15. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that PW-15 Inspector Karam Singh has in fact proved the age of the prosecutrix. 16. The principles referred to above may now be considered. The prosecutrix is not being treated and cannot be treated as an accomplice nor can her statement be scrutinised with suspicion as urged. I have noticed supra that the case does indeed disclose strange facts namely (a) that the prosecutrix was forcibly raped in the school; (b) that this act was again repeatedly committed by the accused in the house of the prosecutrix during night when other family members were present in the adjoining rooms. I do not find this to be normal behaviour on the part either of the prosecutrix, her parents or grandparents who were living in the same house. I also find from the evidence that relatives of the prosecutrix had gone to meet the accused at some temple, where after the case was instituted against the accused. I have already considered the letter Ext.D-1 as also the medical evidence which did not disclose any recent sexual intercourse. It is in this event I do not find that the accused can be said to have ravished the prosecutrix. Her statement when considered is found against the normal human conduct. The learned trial Court is in error in having convicted the accused and invoking the presumption under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act against the accused in all circumstances. This is a case where the very genesis of the act itself is doubtful. In these circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of learned trial Court is quashed and set aside. The appellant shall be set at liberty if he is not wanted in any other case. Fine deposited be refunded to the appellant.