Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J. (By Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.9.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Mathura, whereby the learned trial judge acquitted the sole accused Ravi from the charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., the complainant/first informant has preferred this appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on the point of admission and carefully perused the records. Some brief facts, according to the F.I.R. lodged by the informant/appellant Ram Gopal Singh at Police Station Highway, district Mathura, are that his 16 years old daughter Km. Soniya, who was a student of Chameli Devi Girls Inter College, Mathura, had gone to her college on 14.12.2012 at 6.30 A.M. but when she did not return the complainant started to search for her. During search he was informed by witnesses Yogesh and Brijesh Thakur that they had seen his daughter going on a motorcycle with accused Ravi. One unknown person was also sitting behind Soniya on that motorcycle. On the basis of this written report, a criminal case under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. was registered against accused Ravi at Crime No. 826 of 2012 at P.S. Highway, district Mathura. The matter was investigated and after concluding the investigation and finding the accused, prima facie, guilty, the police submitted charge-sheet against him under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. The case was committed to the court of sessions, where charges were framed against accused Ravi who denied the charges and claimed his trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence including the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her medical examination reports etc. In oral evidence, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses in all, out of which 3 witnesses were of fact and 3 were of formal nature. The informant (appellant) was examined as P.W. 1. He supported the prosecution story, as mentioned in the F.I.R., in his statement. In addition to the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. he also stated that he had met his daughter Soniya in High Court, Allahabad. Soniya and Ravi had taken shelter in the house of Bal Kishan. They had stayed there for 2 - 3 days. Bal Kishan had threatened him. In addition to the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. he also stated that he had met his daughter Soniya in High Court, Allahabad. Soniya and Ravi had taken shelter in the house of Bal Kishan. They had stayed there for 2 - 3 days. Bal Kishan had threatened him. His daughter had informed him that accused Ravi had forcibly committed rape on her. The prosecutrix Soniya has been examined as P.W. 2. She has supported the prosecution story by stating that on 14.12.2012 she was aged about 16 years and was a student of Class XII in Chameli Devi Girls Inter College. On the date of occurrence at about 6.30 A.M. when she was waiting for the bus for going to her college, two young boys came on a motorcycle. They put a hanky on her nose and forcibly made her sit on the motorcycle. They took her with them to some unknown place. She had become unconscious. After gaining consciousness she found herself inside a closed room. She had to live in that room for 2 - 3 days where accused Ravi by putting her under the threat of killing her family members, raped her severally. After 4 days she was taken to some other unknown place. By over-hearing the conversation between the inmates of that house, she came to know that it was the house of some Bal Kishan situated at Nagla Kiki. She lived there for 3 days and thereafter she was taken to Aligarh. She lived at Aligarh for 20 - 22 days and then she went to Allahabad. Ravi had already obtained her signatures on some blank papers. At Allahabad they went to High Court, where her parents also reached alongwith the police. Seeing the police Ravi absconded and she returned to her parents' home at Mathura on 23.1.2013. She was medically examined at Mathura and her statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She was given in the custody of her father by the Magistrate. P.W. 3 Yogendra alias Yogesh is the witness whose name is mentioned in the F.I.R. itself, as a witness who had informed the father of the prosecutrix about seeing his daughter going with accused Ravi on a motorcycle. P.W. 3 Yogendra alias Yogesh is the witness whose name is mentioned in the F.I.R. itself, as a witness who had informed the father of the prosecutrix about seeing his daughter going with accused Ravi on a motorcycle. Yogesh has supported the prosecution story and he has stated that on 14.12.2012 (the date of occurrence) he had gone to the house of Ram Gopal at about 5 - 6 P.M. in the evening. He saw that all the family members were sitting quietly. When he asked from them what was the matter he was informed about missing of their daughter. On this he informed them about his seeing their daughter going on a motorcycle with accused Ravi. Lady doctor Shalini Singh, who had medically examined the prosecutrix, has been produced as P.W. 5. Her testimony shows that she had not found any external or internal injury on the body of the prosecutrix. She was found to be used to sexual intercourse. All the epiphysis around her joints were found fused and her radiological age was found to be above 18 years. No spermatozoa were found according to pathological report of the prosecutrix. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations and stated that Soniya had willingly left her parental home and had married to him. She had willingly moved an application before the Additional District Magistrate (City), Aligarh alongwith affidavit that a certificate be issued regarding her age. On her application Chief Medical Officer, Aligarh examined her and found her age to be of 19 years. The accused has adduced defence witness D.W. 1 Prashant, Junior Clerk in the office of Chief Medical Officer who has appeared in court alongwith the entire record of medical examination of Km. Soniya conducted under the orders of C.M.O., Aligarh. He has produced in trial court the age certificate dated 4.1.2013 of Soniya having her thumb marks on it. He has also produced the x-ray report of the prosecutrix and the affidavit given by her alongwith her application before the A.D.M. (City), forwarded by the A.D.M. to the C.M.O., Aligarh. The defence has filed the marriage certificate of the marriage performed at Aarya Samaj Mandir between Ravi and Soniya in original and the photographs of Soniya and Ravi taken at the time of their marriage. The defence has filed the marriage certificate of the marriage performed at Aarya Samaj Mandir between Ravi and Soniya in original and the photographs of Soniya and Ravi taken at the time of their marriage. The learned trial court after appreciating the entire evidence produced by both the courts below came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court has observed that the photographs produced by accused Ravi clearly show that marriage has been performed by them because vermilion is clearly appearing in the forehead of prosecutrix and both are wearing garlands. Ravi has put her hands on the shoulder of Soniya and Soniya's hands are in the hand of Ravi. On the basis of these facts the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that Soniya was put under threat while performing marriage with Ravi. The learned trial court has also considered that Soniya, on interrogation had informed the I.O. that accused Ravi had taken her to Allahabad from Aligarh by train. It was a whole night train journey. At Allahabad they had met with an advocate who produced them before the court. A perusal of impugned judgment also shows that P.W. 1 (informant/father of the prosecutrix) has admitted the fact that he had filed a caveat in Allahabad High Court and he met his daughter during the hearing of writ petition filed by his daughter Soniya. Soniya herself had filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 413 of 2013 for quashing the F.I.R. lodged against Ravi and in that writ petition filed before this Court she had clearly stated that she is major aged about 20 years and she had married with Ravi out of her own free will. Considering all these facts, the learned court below did not find the prosecution story reliable and trustworthy and acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him. The appellant has challenged the aforesaid judgment mainly on the ground that the age of the prosecutrix as per High School certificate is 23.10.1996. Therefore, keeping in view, Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rules she was a minor having the age of 16 years one month on the date of occurrence and if she was a minor her consent does not matter. Therefore, keeping in view, Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rules she was a minor having the age of 16 years one month on the date of occurrence and if she was a minor her consent does not matter. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the sessions judge has grossly mistaken in law by ignoring High School certificate of the prosecutrix due to the reason that only a photo copy of High School certificate has been submitted which has not been proved. He has further argued that Section 35 of Evidence Act speaks about relevancy of entry in public record. The High School certificate of Soniya issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education is a public document. So it does not require any formal proof but the learned sessions judge grossly erred while ignoring the High School certificate and giving undue advantage to the medical opinion given by Chief Medical Officer, Aligarh determining her age as 20 years. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment, we do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. The prosecutrix Soniya herself had filed writ petition before this Court with her affidavit attached to it in which she has clearly stated that she is major and has performed marriage with accused respondent on her own. Besides it, while travelling from Aligarh to Allahabad over night by a train, she had sufficient and ample opportunity to raise alarm and to inform the public that accused Ravi was forcibly taking her away or he had committed rape on her but she did not raise any alarm nor she informed any one. Her physical traits have been found well developed. No external or internal injury has been found on her body. Her joints have been found fused and as per radiological report she has been found to be above 19 years of age on the date of occurrence. The prosecution had filed only a photostat copy of High School certificate which was legally not admissible and the learned trial court has rightly ignored it. There appears no merit in this appeal. It is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage and is accordingly dismissed. ——————