JUDGMENT S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard Ms. Meena Vyas, learned advocate for appellant whereas Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. The appellant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order of his conviction dated 1.9.2012 in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2012 by the learned Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad City has preferred this Appeal. By the impugned judgment, appellant is convicted under Section 363 of the I.P.C. for the period of 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further SI of 1 month with conviction under Section 366 for the period of 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and 2 months, whereas, he is further convicted for 7 years of RI with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and 2 months under Section 376 of the Code. 3. The factual details and story of investigation has been well explained in the impugned judgment as well as in the memo of Appeal and hence, considering the age of the victim and nature of incident, its reproduction is avoided. 4. I have also perused the Record and Proceedings in the form of paper-book, the impugned judgment and also considered the rival submissions to ascertain the validity and legality of the impugned judgment. 5. At the outset, it cannot be ignored that so far as incident is concerned, it involves abduction and rape of minor girl aged about 12 years by the appellant and unfortunately though victim is minor, the defence is regarding her consent. It is settled legal position that consent of minor is not a valid consent at all and even if there is evidence regarding such consent by minor, appellant may not get benefit of such evidence since law specifically provides that consent by minor is not a valid consent. In view of such facts and circumstances, if there is evidence regarding abduction and rape of a minor girl then appellant - accused would have no escape from conviction. 6. In view of above settled legal position, the evidence also needs to be examined for such limited purpose only, so as to examine that whether victim is minor or not and that whether her consent is valid and permissible under the law for the appellant to indulge into such physical relationship with a minor girl or not. 7. 6. In view of above settled legal position, the evidence also needs to be examined for such limited purpose only, so as to examine that whether victim is minor or not and that whether her consent is valid and permissible under the law for the appellant to indulge into such physical relationship with a minor girl or not. 7. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and produced 16 documentary evidence. Amongst them, the material evidence is at Exh. 46, a certificate issued by Principal of Shahidvir Vinodbhai Solanki, Vadaj School No. 4, Vadaj. Since it is a Government School, there is no reason to suspect its record and register which is produced and proved on record at Exh. 47. Such register at Exh. 47 shows the name of the victim at Sr. No. 8289 wherein her date of birth is registered as 15.7.2000, which fact has been certified in a form of certificate which is proved at Exh. 46 by PW-14 at Exh. 45 namely; Yogini Jashvantlal Mehta, who is serving as a Principal of such school since the year 2006. Her deposition is recorded on 7.8.2012. Therefore, she is well experienced Principal of school and hence she has in categorical terms disclosed the fact regarding date of birth of the victim and proves necessary documents at Exh. 31 being Progress Report of the victim and Exhs. 46 and 47 which are referred hereinabove. Thereby, there is clear evidence on record regarding date of birth of the victim as 15.7.2000. Since incident has taken place on 20.9.2011, it is clear and certain that the victim is even below the age of 12 years on the date of incident. Therefore, even after lengthy cross examination, it could not be proved that victim is aged about 18 years or at-least above 16 years. Thereby, there is no reason to discuss other evidence about history and story regarding allegations and offence for which the appellant has been convicted. Therefore, even after lengthy cross examination, it could not be proved that victim is aged about 18 years or at-least above 16 years. Thereby, there is no reason to discuss other evidence about history and story regarding allegations and offence for which the appellant has been convicted. So far as cross examination of this witness is concerned, though she is cross examined at length and though an attempt was made to prove that there is authenticity of the date of birth of the victim, scrutiny of entire cross examination goes to show that an attempt to create a doubt in such evidence was certainly made but ultimately, appellant-accused could not rebut her evidence so as to prove that date of birth of the victim is either incorrect or manipulated in any manner whatsoever. So far as practice and procedure in maintaining such registers and its nature are concerned, as it is reflected from the cross examination, it does not prove in any manner whatsoever that such documents are either forged or created with intention to prove some fact though it is not correct and when independent witness has nothing to do either with the accused or with the victim, there is no reason to discard such evidence. 8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to recollect the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Chhattisgarh v. Lekhram reported in : 2006 (5) SCC 736 , wherein, it is held that a register maintained in a school is admissible evidence to prove date of birth of the person concerned in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Such dates of birth are recorded in the school register by the authorities in discharge of their public duty. Even if an entry in the school register may not be conclusive but it has evidentiary value and when it is corroborated by oral evidence, there is no reason to discard such evidence so as to consider the age of the victim in such cases of rape. 9. In view of above facts and circumstances, now when age of the victim is certainly below 12 years, the rest of the evidence is required to be scrutinized in light of such fact only, so as to avoid discussion of each and every small issue in defence. 10. PW-1 at Exh. 8, PW-2 at Exh. 12, PW-3 at Exh. 9. In view of above facts and circumstances, now when age of the victim is certainly below 12 years, the rest of the evidence is required to be scrutinized in light of such fact only, so as to avoid discussion of each and every small issue in defence. 10. PW-1 at Exh. 8, PW-2 at Exh. 12, PW-3 at Exh. 14 and PW-12 at Exh. 34 are panch witnesses regarding clothes of the accused, panch witness for collecting sample for FSL and panch witness of clothes of the victim respectively. They all supported the case of prosecution and, thereby, proves the relevant documents being Panchnama at Exhs. 9, 13, 15 respectively. Since all these witnesses have supported the case of prosecution, though they all have been cross examined at length, accused could not rebut the evidence of the witness so as to prove his innocence. 11. PW-4 at Exh. 19, PW-5 at Exh. 20 and PW-6 at Exh. 21 are relatives of the victim being her sister-in-law, brother and mother. Therefore, they have also supported the case of prosecution as per their statement before the Police and though were cross examined at length, accused could not rebut the evidence of the witness so as to prove his innocence. Amongst them, PW-6 being mother of the victim has filed a complaint which she proves at Exh. 22. She also discloses the age of the victim as 12 years at the time of incident which is corroborated by documentary evidence at Exhs. 46 and 47, for the age of the victim. 12. PW-7 at Exh. 23 is Dr. Bhairvi Balvant Pande. Though, she has proved medical examination of the victim by her, it is her say that victim has disclosed her consent regarding running away with the accused and also for the sexual relationship with the accused. In cross examination, she supports the defence by admitting that victim was found to be major and, therefore, she has not opined for ossification test and radiologic test. By and large, her deposition is supporting the accused both, in examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination and she proves her certificate at Exh. 24, wherein, also she has endorsed about the consent of victim. But the most important point she has failed to realize is the fact about the age of the victim in her certificate at Exh. 24. By and large, her deposition is supporting the accused both, in examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination and she proves her certificate at Exh. 24, wherein, also she has endorsed about the consent of victim. But the most important point she has failed to realize is the fact about the age of the victim in her certificate at Exh. 24. She did not dare to disclose the age of the victim in her deposition except telling that she seems to be major. I fail to understand and realize that how a Medical Officer and that too a lady Medical Officer fails to realize and consider the age of the victim who was less than 12 years and how she recognized her as a major person and then in that case, why she has not recorded her age in certificate. Her evidence is negativated on her own when she deposed that there was no evidence of sexual intercourse, as against that, she dared to endorse in a certificate itself that the victim has stated her that she had a physical relationship with the accused during the period of her abduction. Therefore, though evidence of said witness is supporting the defence in all manner, it is not only untrustworthy but needs to be deprecated and even if we believe such evidence as it is, then in view of the evidence of age of the victim being less than 12 years, her consent recorded by such Medical Officer is not material. The certificate at Exh. 24 is dated 5.10.2011, though victim was examined on 24.9.2011. The witness has also proved on record the Police Yadi dated 24.9.2011 at Exh. 25 for examining the victim. Irrespective of discarding such evidence, I could not resist myself from recording that in-fact the appointing authority of such Medical Officer should be informed about such attitude of such Doctors and at the relevant time, itself Investigating Agency should certainly initiates appropriate proceeding against such Doctor, when Doctor has failed to perform ossification and radiologic examination to ascertain the age of the victim and for recording a consent by a minor victim in such heinous crime. 13. As against that, the evidence of another Doctor being PW-8 at Exh. 26 namely; Dr. 13. As against that, the evidence of another Doctor being PW-8 at Exh. 26 namely; Dr. Yasmin Mohmadsafi Hussaini confirms that he has examined the accused on the same day, wherein, for the history of incident, he has admitted about the incident but he denied to have entered into physical relationship with the victim. Since there is nothing against the accused by such witness, no further discussion is required except to note that the witness has proved the medical certificate at Exh. 27. 14. PW-9 at Exh. 30 is victim. If we peruse her deposition, it categorically goes to show that she has never intended to give consent either for abduction or for entering into physical relationship with the accused when she categorically deposed that she knows the accused because he used to visit a house in neighborhood and when accused was smiling at her, she was also smiling but she never knew that accused will commit such an act with her. She is minor and, therefore, even if it is submitted that she has not resisted or she has agreed to go with the accused, her consent cannot be considered as such but on the contrary, she has specifically deposed that even though she refused to do it, the accused has entered into bad relation with her and at that time, when she has resisted, the accused has committed an offence of rape in the name of marriage. Thereby, for entering into such relationship even temptation of marriage that too with a minor girl, certainly amounts to commission of offence of rape, irrespective of consent of the minor. She denied the suggestion that she has stated to the Police in her statement that she entered into physical relationship by her own consent or that she has disclosed to the Doctor about her consent both, for abduction and for physical relationship. Therefore, both the Investigating Agency and Doctor are required to be deprecated for recording such a statement of a minor girl. 15. For the purpose, Registrar General of this High Court has to forward copies of this judgment to the concerned authorities of the State Government for doing the needful in such cases. 16. Rest of the evidence regarding story and history of incidents are not material at all. 17. PW-32, PW-33 and PW-35 at Exhs. 15. For the purpose, Registrar General of this High Court has to forward copies of this judgment to the concerned authorities of the State Government for doing the needful in such cases. 16. Rest of the evidence regarding story and history of incidents are not material at all. 17. PW-32, PW-33 and PW-35 at Exhs. 10, 11 and 13 respectively are Police Officials and Investigating Officers and, therefore, they have disclosed their role in the investigation and proved relevant documentary evidence from Exhs. 36 to 43 including FSL Report etc. However, considering the discussion of evidence as aforesaid, and more particularly, when appellant could not rebut evidence so as to prove his innocence, there is no necessity to discuss such evidence in minute details. However, so far as cross-examination of Investigating Officer is concerned, it is to be recorded, at the cost of repetition that the Investigating Agency should be careful and they should not indulge in recording such type of statements when victim has categorically denied to have disclosed her consent in her statement. 18. The say of the accused in his Further Statements at Exh. 6 under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also material and enlightening the position of such type of belief in the society, when accused has categorically stated before the Court that victim was in love with him and since her family did not agree to such relationship, they have filed a false complaint. It is surprising to note that though the victim is less than 12 years of age, the accused who is of 22 years of age is claiming that they were in love relationship since long time and that parents of the victim were threatening him and restricting him from meeting the victim, but, thereafter, their love relationship continued and, therefore, parents of the victim has filed a false complaint. It has been noticed that there are several cases of similar nature in the Society and, therefore, it would be appropriate for the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee to include such subject in legal literacy camp in different area so as to explain to the people that there should not be a relation with minor girl which attracts the penal provision and, thereby, they may be convicted and sentenced even if minor girls have entered into such madness of falling in love at such age. So also, the minor girls needs to learn and to realize that irrespective of emotional results, they are not supposed to enter into such activity which would otherwise result into conviction of their own if it is in-fact a love affair. However, it would be the decision of the highest authority of such committee to initiate appropriate steps. 19. For the purpose, Registrar General of this High Court has to forward copy of this judgment to the Member Secretary, Gujarat State Legal Services Authority for doing the needful in such cases. 20. The only evidence remains is in the form of FSL report, though it is negative, it is not much material since the age of the victim is less than 12 years and, therefore, even if there is penetration, there may be absence of sperm in a vaginal swab and clothes of the victim but when other evidence confirms the offence as alleged, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. It is also obvious that in-fact appellant is admitting the physical relation, since his defence is of consent. 21. I have perused the impugned judgment in detail. The Court has taken care of all relevant aspects of the matter both, for evidence and law point and assigned good reasons for confirming conviction of the accused. I do not see any reason to interfere with such decision. Thereby, there is no substance in the Appeal so as to disturb or interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction. 22. Thereby, the Appeal needs to be dismissed being lack of merits. Hence, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. 23. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court.