JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Since all these appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order, dated 05.10.2013/23.10.2013, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These appeals are instituted against the judgment and order, dated 05.10.2013/23.10.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla-cum-exercising the powers of Special Judge under SC/ST Act, 1989 in Sessions Trial No. 38-S/7 of 2012, whereby the appellants-accused, who were charged with and tried for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 376, 323, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were convicted and sentenced under these Sections. 3. Case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that PW-1, prosecutrix had gone to Chakwan forest in order to collect fire wood. Three accused, namely, Manoj Kumar, Titu and Dinesh Kumar caught hold of her. Thereafter, they handed over her to accused Dila Singh alias Dilraj. He slapped her. He caught hold of her from her neck and thereafter committed forcible sexual intercourse with her without her consent. Thereafter, accused Dilraj left the place. He threatened her that he would put up her on fire. She came back to her home. She narrated the entire incident to her mother. On the next morning, they went to Police Station, Chirgaon. FIR Ex.PW1/A was registered. Police officials visited the spot of incident. She showed the place of occurrence to the police. Police took the photographs. The prosecutrix also handed over the under wear to the police vide memo Ex. PW1/B. She was medically examined. The police after completion of the codal formalities put up the challan in the Court against the accused. 4. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses to support its case. The accused were also examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. They pleaded innocence. They were convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, these appeals. 5. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma and Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the respective appellants have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons. 6. Mr. P. M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, supported the judgment, dated 05.10.2013. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and records, carefully. 8. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the respective appellants have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons. 6. Mr. P. M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, supported the judgment, dated 05.10.2013. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and records, carefully. 8. PW-1, the prosecutrix testified that in the year 2012, she had gone to Chakwan forest at about 5:00 p.m.. When she was cutting the wood, at that time, the accused persons came there. Three accused persons caught hold of her. Thereafter, they handed over her to accused Dila Singh alias Dilraj. Accused Dilraj slapped her. He caught hold of her from her neck and thereafter committed forcible sexual intercourse with her without her consent. When accused Dilraj left the spot, he threatened her that he would put up her on fire. Thereafter, she returned to home. She narrated the entire incident to her mother. They could not report the matter on the same day. On the next day, they went to the Police Station. FIR Ex. PW1/A was registered. Police took the photographs of the spot. She handed over her underwear to the police, which was taken into possession vide Ex. P1. She belongs to Scheduled caste and is Koli by caste. Accused persons belong to nonscheduled caste and are Rajputs. In her cross-examination, she has stated that her house is at a distance of about 100 to 200 mtrs. from the road. She could not tell the distance of Chakwan forest from her house. She started from her house for Chakwan forest at about 4:00 p.m. on that day and reached in the forest at about 5:00 p.m. She was alone in the forest. Accused had come to forest after two hours when she left for the forest. She was not acquainted with the accused persons. She did not know the accused earlier. She did not remember what kind of clothes the accused persons were wearing on that day. She could not tell the exact distance of houses of accused persons from her village. She had taken a rope and a drat with her when she left for forest. She inquired about the names of other accused persons from the villagers. Her father had inquired about the names. It was after two-three days that the names of other accused were known. She had taken a rope and a drat with her when she left for forest. She inquired about the names of other accused persons from the villagers. Her father had inquired about the names. It was after two-three days that the names of other accused were known. She suffered injuries on her arms and blood started oozing out. The blood oozed out from her private part when accused committed forcible intercourse upon her. She reached at her home at about 6:00 p.m. 9. PW-2 is the mother of the prosecutrix. According to her, in the evening time, her daughter, i.e., the prosecutrix, had left for Chakwan forest in order to collect fire wood. She returned home at about 6:00 p.m. in the evening. Her clothes were torn. On her asking firstly she did not tell, but when she asked again, she narrated the incident. She disclosed to her that three accused persons caught hold of her and handed her over to accused Dilraj. Thereafter, accused Dilraj committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her without her consent. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she married to Lobha Ram 10-12 years ago. She had two daughters and one son from Lobha Ram. Name of the prosecutrix was not entered in the family register of Lobha Ram. The prosecutrix was admitted in Government School, Katsari. She did not know the age of her elder daughter, Rekha. She has never visited that Forest. 10. PW-3, Sh. Shishi Ram, deposed that the Police has asked him to put his signatures on Ex. PW1/B. He did not know in what respect he has appended his signatures. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not inquired from the police officials as to what was written on Ex.PW1/B. He denied the suggestion that prosecutrix had shown the place of incident to the police officials in Chakwan forest in his presence. He also denied the suggestion that police took the photographs of the place of occurrence. He also denied that the prosecutrix had disclosed to him that accused persons had caught her in the forest and accused Dilraj had committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her against her will. 11. PW-4, Dr. Usha has examined the prosecutrix. He also denied the suggestion that police took the photographs of the place of occurrence. He also denied that the prosecutrix had disclosed to him that accused persons had caught her in the forest and accused Dilraj had committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her against her will. 11. PW-4, Dr. Usha has examined the prosecutrix. According to her final opinion, she was not habitual of sexual intercourse, but possibility of recent sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. She issued M.L.C. Ex. PW4/A. In her cross-examination, she admitted that there were no marks of any external injuries all over the body of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix did not disclose that she was having pain all over the body except private part. She has admitted that from local clinical examination, she had not ascertained whether recent sexual intercourse has taken place or not, however, volunteered that possibility of recent sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. 12. PW-5, Sh. Ravinder Kumar, has proved the certificate Ex. PW5/A. The date of birth of the prosecutrix in the admission register was entered as 22.05.1997. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the prosecutrix was not admitted in the School when he was working as teacher in that school. He also admitted that at the time of admission, they demand certificate from Panchayat regarding date of birth and in the absence of the same affidavit of parents/guardian duly attested by Magistrate is demanded. The Police has not taken the date of birth certificate of Panchayat from him. He did not remember when the police visited their School for obtaining the certificate, however, voluntarily stated that the date was mentioned in the certificate. The application was moved for obtaining the date of birth certificate of prosecutrix, which was kept in his record. But, he has not brought the record while appearing in the Court. 13. PW-6, Sh. Lobha Ram, is the father of the prosecutrix. According to him, his wife told him that when the prosecutrix had gone to Chakwan forest in the evening at about 5:00 p.m., at that time coaccused Manoj, Titu and Dinesh caught hold minor prosecutrix and they dragged her towards accused Dila Singh. Thereafter, accused Dila Singh committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her. She cried for help, but nobody heard her cries. Thereafter, she returned home and disclosed the incident to his wife. 14. PW-7, Dr. Thereafter, accused Dila Singh committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her. She cried for help, but nobody heard her cries. Thereafter, she returned home and disclosed the incident to his wife. 14. PW-7, Dr. Sandeep Jain, Radiologist, has deposed that after examination of X-Ray films Ex. PW7/A-1 to Ex. PW-7/A-6, he rendered his opinion Ex. PW7/B. In his opinion, the age of the prosecutrix was between 15 years to 16 ½ years. He issued report Ex. PW7/B. PW-8, Dr. Ashish Sharma, Medical Officer, has deposed that as per radiographic examination, the age of the prosecutrix was above 15 years. He issued MLC Ex. PW4/A. 15. PW-9, Dr. B.D. Negi, Medical Officer, has examined the accused and issued MLC Ex. PW9/A. PW-10, Head Constable Jagat Ram, deposed that on 30.03.2012, ASI Khalil Ahmad has handed over to him a number of parcels. He made an entry in this regard at Sr. No. 269. On 11.06.2012, ASI Kuldeep, deposited with him one vial, one envelop and one another envelop. He made an entry in this regard at Sr. No. 287 of malkhana register. He handed over the case property to Constable Sanjeev Kumar on 01.06.2012 for being taken to FSL Junga for examination. 16. PW-11, Constable Sanjeev has deposed that he took the case property to FSL Junga. PW-12, ASI Khalil Ahmed deposed that on 29.03.2012, the prosecutrix alongwith her mother came to the Police Station and lodged the report about commission of rape upon her by the accused, on the basis of which, FIR Ex. PW1/A was registered. MLC Ex. PW4/A of the prosecutrix was obtained. He also took the photographs of the spot. The underwear was produced by the prosecutrix, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/B and sealed with seal impression of seal H. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the prosecutrix and her mother arrived at Police Station at about 5:45 p.m. on 29.03.2012. He visited village Diuchi firstly on 30.03.2012. He has not collected any other document except date of birth certificate from Garsari School. 17. PW-13, Constable Pawan Kumar, has deposed that he has taken the case property to FSL Junga. PW-4, ASI Kuldeep Kumar, deposed that he got the accused Dila Singh medically examined at CHC Sandasu and obtained MLC Ex. He visited village Diuchi firstly on 30.03.2012. He has not collected any other document except date of birth certificate from Garsari School. 17. PW-13, Constable Pawan Kumar, has deposed that he has taken the case property to FSL Junga. PW-4, ASI Kuldeep Kumar, deposed that he got the accused Dila Singh medically examined at CHC Sandasu and obtained MLC Ex. PW-9/A. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not conduct the identification parade of accused Manoj, Titu and Dinesh, voluntarily stated that prosecutrix was knowing the accused persons by face and she was not knowing their names earlier. Names of accused Manoj, Titu and Dinesh were disclosed to him by the prosecutrix. He had also inquired about the names of aforesaid three accused persons from accused Dila Singh. 18. PW-15, Dr. Monika Rana, PW-16, Sh. Raj Kumar and PW- 17, ASI Jeet Ram are formal witnesses. PW-18, Gopinder Singh, has issued the caste certificate Ex. PW-18/A to Ex. PW18/D. PW-19, Prithvi Singh, has deposed that he has issued caste certificate of the prosecutrix Ex. PW19/A. He has sent this certificate to SHO, Police Station, Chirgaon. PW-20, Inspector Chander Shekhar is a formal witness. 19. What emerges from the analysis of the statements of witnesses discussed hereinabove, is that the prosecutrix has left her house at 4:00 p.m. and reached the forest at 5:00 p.m. Accused Manoj Kumar, Titu and Dinesh Kumar were present in the forest. They handed over her to accused Dila Singh. Accused Dila Singh slapped her and thereafter committed rape upon her. She came back to her home and narrated the incident to her mother. Thereafter, they went to the Police Station early in the morning of next day. 20. The prosecutrix did not know the identity of Manoj, Titu and Dinesh. She enquired about the names of other co-accused persons from the villagers. She has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that she did not know the accused earlier. She did not remember the clothes which the accused persons were wearing on that day. Her father had enquired about the names of the accused persons. It was only after three days that the names of three co-accused were known. According to PW-12, ASI Khalil Ahmed, the prosecutrix and her mother arrived at the Police Station at 5:00 p.m. on 29.03.2012. Her father had enquired about the names of the accused persons. It was only after three days that the names of three co-accused were known. According to PW-12, ASI Khalil Ahmed, the prosecutrix and her mother arrived at the Police Station at 5:00 p.m. on 29.03.2012. There is variance in the statement of PW-1, prosecutrix and PW-12, ASI Khalil Ahmed at what time, the prosecutrix went to the Police Station with her mother. According to PW-1, prosecutrix, she went to the Police Station in the morning, but, as noticed above, PW-12, ASI Khalil Ahmed has categorically stated in his cross-examination that the prosecutrix and her mother arrived at the Police Station at 5:40 p.m. on 29.03.2012. 21. It is not the case of the prosecutrix that the accused were chasing her when she had gone to the forest. According to the prosecutrix, accused Manoj, Titu and Dinesh were on the spot and they handed over her to accused Dila Singh. This is highly improbable. Why those three boys would hand over the prosecutrix to accused Dila Singh for committing rape on her. According to the prosecutrix, three coaccused after handing over her to accused Dila Singh, had left the spot. They had also been charged under Sections 376, 323, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence on record that these three co-accused Manoj, Titu and Dinesh conspired to hand over the prosecutrix to accused Dila Singh. It is also not the case of the prosecutrix that the accused persons knew about the arrival of the prosecutrix in the evening in the forest at 5:00 p.m. 22. According to the certificate issued by PW-5, Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Ex. PW5/A, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 22.05.1997. According to PW-7, Dr. Sandeep Jain, the radiological age of the prosecutrix was between 15 years to 16 ½ years, though according to PW-8, Dr. Ashish Sharma, Medical Officer, the age of the prosecutrix was above 15 years as per MLC Ex. PW4/A. 23. The prosecutrix was examined by PW-4, Dr. Usha. She issued MLC Ex. PW4/A. She gave the final opinion that the prosecutrix was not habitual of sexual intercourse, but possibility of recent sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. In her cross-examination, she has specifically admitted that there were no marks of any external injuries all over the body of the prosecutrix. Usha. She issued MLC Ex. PW4/A. She gave the final opinion that the prosecutrix was not habitual of sexual intercourse, but possibility of recent sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. In her cross-examination, she has specifically admitted that there were no marks of any external injuries all over the body of the prosecutrix. She also admitted that from local clinical examination, she had not ascertained whether recent sexual intercourse had taken place or not. According to PW-4, Dr. Usha, no semen was found on exhibits of the prosecutrix. 24. The accused were also charged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of convenience). However, there is no tangible evidence produced by the prosecution to prove this charge, except the bald statement made by PW-1, prosecutrix that she belongs to Scheduled Castes and is Koli. There is no imputation made against the accused that they have committed any atrocities on her being Scheduled Caste. Merely that the prosecutrix happens to be Scheduled Caste, would not attract the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Investigating Officer, PW-12, ASI Khalil Ahmed, had added this Section merely at the instance of mother of the prosecutrix. The matter should have been investigated before adding Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The accused cannot be convicted under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act only on the basis of caste certificates issued by PW-18, Gopinder Singh, Patwari and PW-19, Tehsildar. 25. In the instant case, there is no averment in the FIR that the incident happened with the prosecutrix only for the reason that she happened to be the Scheduled Caste. There should be sufficient material on record at the time of framing of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 26. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. There should be sufficient material on record at the time of framing of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 26. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 557 have held that to attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Indian Penal Code is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. Their Lordships have held as under: “5. The trial Court accepted the evidence of Deubai (PW-4) and Manoj (PW-5). Manoj corroborated the evidence tendered by Deubai to the extent of having seen the appellant having a Jambiya in his hand when Deubai (PW-4) was following him and that he found something very suspicious so he followed both of them. That is how he witnessed the scuffle and the injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased. Deubai admitted in the course of her cross-examination that scuffle took place between the appellant and her husband and her husband fell on the ground, that for considerable time, the scuffle went on; that while on some occasions the appellant was on the ground, on some other occasions her husband was on the ground; that the appellant and the deceased were overpowering each other. PW-5 also stated that he saw that in front of the hospital of Dr. Kalwaghe the deceased coming and the appellant was following him with dagger and gave blows of dagger on the person of the deceased. The trial Court found from these circumstances that the appellant had no intention to kill the deceased and that after giving one blow, other injuries had been caused due to scuffle. This was amply supported by the evidence of the Medical Officer that injuries Nos. 2 and 4 to 10 could be caused in the scuffle, or injuries other than injury No. 1 could be caused due to obstruction by the deceased. Therefore, it could not be inferred that the appellant intended to inflict more injuries than injury No. 1. This was amply supported by the evidence of the Medical Officer that injuries Nos. 2 and 4 to 10 could be caused in the scuffle, or injuries other than injury No. 1 could be caused due to obstruction by the deceased. Therefore, it could not be inferred that the appellant intended to inflict more injuries than injury No. 1. If this aspect is borne in mind, it would be clear that the appellant had given only one blow with the Jambiya resulting in his death and, therefore, the trial Court found that it would not be proper to convict the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. The argument relating to private defence was straightway rejected for there were no injuries on the person of the appellant and the attack had been made by the appellant himself. The trial Court discarded the evidence relating to discovery of the weapon and jacket for the reasons set forth in the order. The trial Court also convicted the appellant for the offence arising under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act only on the basis that there was no controversy that the victim belonged to the scheduled caste and convicted him.” In the instant case, the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act were lacking from the very beginning and the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove this charge. 27. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have reiterated the same principles in Dinesh alias Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006)3 Supreme Court Cases 771 and have held that sine qua non for Section 3(2)(v) is that the offence in question must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of SC/ST. Their Lordships have held as under: “15. Sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) is that an offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case no evidence has been led to establish this requirement. It is not case of the prosecution that the rape was committed on the victim since she was a member of Scheduled Caste. In the absence of evidence to that effect, Section 3(2)(v) has no application. Had Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act been applicable then by operation of law, the sentence would have been imprisonment for life and fine.” 28. In the absence of evidence to that effect, Section 3(2)(v) has no application. Had Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act been applicable then by operation of law, the sentence would have been imprisonment for life and fine.” 28. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Ramdas and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 170 have held that the mere fact that the victim happened to be a girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste does not attract the provisions of the Act. Their Lordships have held as under: “11. At the outset we may observe that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove the commission of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The mere fact that the victim happened to be a girl belonging to a scheduled caste does not attract the provisions of the Act. Apart from the fact that the prosecutrix belongs to the Pardhi community, there is no other evidence on record to prove any offence under the said enactment. The High Court has also not noticed any evidence to support the charge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and was perhaps persuaded to affirm the conviction on the basis that the prsecutrix belongs to a scheduled caste community. The conviction of the appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 must, therefore, be set aside.” 29. According to PW-2, mother of the prosecutrix, Smt. Sundermani, she had never gone to the forest Chakwan herself. If she had not gone to the forest, she was not expected to send her daughter also to a distant forest, which took the prosecutrix about one hour to reach. There is no evidence on record to prove the case against the accused persons under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. PW-4 has not noticed any injuries on the body of the prosecutrix as per Ex. PW4/A. According to the prosecutrix, she was cutting the fuel wood when the incident happened, but the Investigating Officer has not found any wood from the spot. It has come in the evidence that the prosecutrix was beaten up and threatened by the accused that if she narrated the incident, he would burn their house and kill them and would run from the spot. It has come in the evidence that the prosecutrix was beaten up and threatened by the accused that if she narrated the incident, he would burn their house and kill them and would run from the spot. However, when the prosecutrix appeared as PW-1, she deposed that the accused threatened her that he would put up her on fire. There is difference between putting the house on fire and putting the person on fire. 30. The conduct of PW-6, Lobha Ram, father of the prosecutrix is also strange. He has also admitted that Chakwan forest was far away from his house. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he did not inquire personally from the prosecutrix regarding the incident and his wife also did not inquire from the prosecutrix in his presence about the incident. 31. In the instant case, there was no evidence of any premediation or pre-arranged plan by the accused. Thus, it could not be inferred that there was common intention to commit the offence. The prosecution, in order to prove an offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, is required to prove that the accused threatened the victim and the threat was with an intention to cause injury to person of the victim. 32. The prosecutrix was carrying a drat in her hand when she visited the forest to collect fuel wood. The prosecutrix and the accused were alone in the forest. She could resist the advances made by the accused by brandishing the drat or hitting the accused with drat. There are no injuries received on her body as per Ex. PW4/A. 33. The original certificate, on the basis of which, Ex. PW5/A has been issued, was not produced in the Court. The date of birth certificate issued to the prosecutrix is not in the prescribed proforma. As per Ex. PW5/A, the certificate issued by the PW-5, the age of the prosecutrix was 22.05.1997. The original admission register was not produced. 34. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh and others Vs. Rajni Kant and another (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 209, have held that the entries made in the official record by an official or person authorized in performance of official duties may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, but the Court has a right to examine their probative value. Rajni Kant and another (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 209, have held that the entries made in the official record by an official or person authorized in performance of official duties may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, but the Court has a right to examine their probative value. Their Lordships have held as under: “17. In State of Bihar Vs. Radha Krishna Singh, this Court dealt with a similar contention and held as under: (SSC PP.138, 143 &171, paras 40,53 & 145). “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 flavor 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 V. State of Bihar, Ram Murti V. State of Haryana, Dayaram V. Dawalatshah, Harpal Singh V. State of H.P., Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P., Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand, Desh Raj V. Bodh Raj and Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh. In these cases, it has been held that even if the entry was made in an official record by the official concerned 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. 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, voters’ 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 V. State of U.P. and Santenu Mitra V. State of W.B. 20. So far as the entries made in the official record by an official or person authorized 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 entries 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. 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) or Sections 50, 51, 59, 60 and 61 etc. of the Evidence Act by examining the person having special means of knowledge, authenticity of date, time, etc. mentioned therein (Vide Updesh Kumar V. Prithvi Singh and State of Punjan V. Mohinder Singh). 35. We have already noticed that the age of the prosecutrix as per the radiological examination was 16 ½ years. The presence of accused persons on the spot is also doubtful. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 36. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The judgment, dated 05.10.2013, is set aside. The accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants and send the same to the concerned Superintendent of Jail.