JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. Judgment and order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 5(3)08, convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for five months more has been assailed. 2. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that victim girl had developed a love affair with the appellant and they were on visiting terms with each other. Taking advantage of such relation, in the month of October, 2006, the appellant took her to a garden at Brahmapur and committed rape upon her against her will. Initially, the appellant threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody. However, subsequently, the appellant promised to marry her and accordingly they co-habited on a number of times. She became pregnant. As her pregnancy grew her parents noticed it and she divulged the incident to her parents. She was then carrying for six months. The parents went to the house of the appellant and proposed marriage of the appellant with the victim. But the appellant denied to marry her. The victim gave premature birth of male child after seven months of pregnancy. Thereafter she lodged written complaint which was registered as F.I.R. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 376/506 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge took up the matter for disposal. Charge was framed against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Defence of the appellant was of one of innocence and false implication. The appellant, however, did not examine anyone. 3. In conclusion of trial, the trial court by judgment and order dated 27.8.14 convicted the appellant and sentenced him, as aforesaid. 4. Mr. Keshari, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that evidence of P.W.1 is highly unreliable. She alleged forcible rape upon her in October 2006, however, she did not disclose it to anyone for six months till her pregnancy was discovered. 4. Mr. Keshari, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that evidence of P.W.1 is highly unreliable. She alleged forcible rape upon her in October 2006, however, she did not disclose it to anyone for six months till her pregnancy was discovered. Her evidence in court is at variance with the F.I.R. Accordingly, the allegation of forcible rape cannot be believed. He further submitted that the age of the victim has not been conclusively proved in accordance with law. The victim being above the age of consent on the date of occurrence the appellant ought to be acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Singh, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim was around 14 years of age as it would be evident from the evidence of the mother of the victim, P.W.3 and the school certificate (Ext.5) which was exhibited by P.W.6, Headmaster of the Madrasah when the victim studied. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1 is reliable and has been corroborated by other witnesses. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. P.W. 1 is the victim and the most vital witness in the instant case. She has deposed that she was a student of Class VI in 2007. She developed an affair with the appellant. In October 2006 the appellant took her to a place at Brahmapur which was surrounded by a wall. There the appellant forcibly laid her on the ground, undressed her and committed rape on her. As a result, she became pregnant. Thereafter the appellant proposed administering medicine to her for termination of pregnancy but subsequently he did not supply such medicine. As her pregnancy grew her family members noticed such fact and she disclosed everything to her mother. Thereafter, the parents of the victim went to the parents of the appellant for proposing marriage. The appellant initially agreed but subsequently denied to marry her. She gave birth to a male child after seven months of pregnancy. After that the parents of the victim again went to the appellant for marriage but the appellant refused to marry her. She lodged F.I.R. (Ext.1). During investigation she made statement to the Magistrate. Her signature on the statement was proved (Ext.2). She also signed on the seizure list (Ext.4). In cross-examination, she stated that she went to Brahmapur in 2007 but could not state the date. 7. She lodged F.I.R. (Ext.1). During investigation she made statement to the Magistrate. Her signature on the statement was proved (Ext.2). She also signed on the seizure list (Ext.4). In cross-examination, she stated that she went to Brahmapur in 2007 but could not state the date. 7. P.W. 2 is the father of the victim girl. He deposed that in October 2006 the appellant took the victim girl and forcibly raped her. As a consequence the victim became pregnant. The appellant assured to marry the victim but subsequently denied to do so after delivery of the child. P.W.3 who is the mother stated that the victim was 17 years of age at the time of her deposition in 2011. She stated that the victim narrated the incident to her after six months. They proposed marriage to the appellant but the appellant initially agreed to marry her but after delivery of the child refused to do so. In cross-examination she denied the suggestion that the victim was presently 22 years of age. P.W.4 is the grandmother of the victim. She has corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W. 3. 8. P.W. 5 is the next door neighbour of the appellant. She stated that there was a love affair between the appellant and the victim girl. Subsequently, the victim became pregnant due to mixing with the appellant. Later, the victim delivered a male child. As the appellants refused to marry the victim a case was started. P.W. 6 is the headmaster of Danga High Madrasah where the victim studied. He produced age certificate of the victim (Ext.5). The date of birth of the victim was written as 13.2.92. In cross-examination he stated that the certificate which has been issued by him according to the certificate of primary school of concerned student. 9. P.W. 7 is the medical officer who examined the victim on 5.9.2007. He stated that hymen was ruptured, vaginal wall was smooth, capacious and two fingers are allowed for examination. It was reported that the victim gave birth of a male child two months ago. He deposed that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse. He proved the original medical examination report (Ext.6). He examined the appellant and found him capable of sexual intercourse (Ext.8). 10. It was reported that the victim gave birth of a male child two months ago. He deposed that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse. He proved the original medical examination report (Ext.6). He examined the appellant and found him capable of sexual intercourse (Ext.8). 10. P.W. 8 is the police officer who received the written complaint from the victim and proved the formal F.I.R. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer of the case who investigated the case and recorded statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and submitted charge-sheet. 11. Analysis of the evidence of P.W. 1 would show that the appellant and P.W.1 had a love affair and were on visiting terms. In October 2006 the victim had been taken by the appellant to a garden in Brahmapur where they had sexual intercourse. P.W.1 in her deposition, however, stated that such sexual intercourse was a forcible one. 12. It has been strenuously argued that the subsequent conduct of the victim does not support a case of forcible intercourse. The victim had remained quite for more than six months for reasons best known to her. In the F.I.R. she stated that she had remained silent as the appellant promised her marriage and co-habited with her on a number of times thereafter on such promise. The appellant did not want her to abort. However, subsequently the appellant resiled from his promise and refused to marry her. On the other hand, in Court the victim deposed that the appellant wanted the victim to terminate her pregnancy and promised to give her medicine but failed to do so. As a result, pregnancy of the victim grew and accordingly such fact was discovered by her family members when she was six months pregnant. Prevaricating stance of the victim P.W. 1 as to the reason why she held back the incident of alleged forcible intercourse from her relations gives rise to a doubt in ones mind as to whether the victim was subjected to forcible intercourse. It is probable that the cohabitation between the victim and the appellant in October 2006 at Brahmapur was a product of consensual sex and not a forcible one. It is probable that the cohabitation between the victim and the appellant in October 2006 at Brahmapur was a product of consensual sex and not a forcible one. Even if I come to such a finding, in view of the age of the victim as proved by the prosecution in the instant case the appellant cannot escape from penal rigours of statutory rape as the victim had, in fact, not crossed the age of consent on that date. The age of the victim in the instant case had been proved through the evidence of mother P.W.3, who stated that her daughter was 17 years on the day of her deposition i.e. 21.4.2010, that is, the victim was around 13/14 years on the date of occurrence. Such evidence is corroborated by the school certificate (Ext.5) proved by P.W.6 which shows that the date of birth of the victim as on 13.2.92 making her around 14 years 8 months in October 2006. 13. It has been argued that primary school records on the basis on which Ext.5 was generated were produced in Court. I find that Ext.5 was prepared by relying on official records maintained in ordinary course of business and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. That apart, in the face of primary evidence as to age coming from the mouth of the P.W.1 as corroborated by Ext.5, I have no hesitation to conclude that the victim was below the age of consent i.e. below 16 years on the date of occurrence i.e. October 2006. 14. In view of such matter, it is of little significance whether the victim was a consenting party or not inasmuch as the victim could not have given consent at all to sexual intercourse at such age. The appellant has not seriously disputed the sexual intercourse with the victim in October 2006 and accordingly, I hold that the appellant is guilty of statutory rape for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Coming to the issue of sentence I find minimum sentence has been imposed on the appellant. There is no special reason for reducing the sentence imposed on the appellant below the statutorily mandated limit. Hence the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the appellant are upheld. 16. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 17. 15. Coming to the issue of sentence I find minimum sentence has been imposed on the appellant. There is no special reason for reducing the sentence imposed on the appellant below the statutorily mandated limit. Hence the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the appellant are upheld. 16. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 17. Let the lower court record and copy of the judgment be sent down to the trial court for necessary compliance and execution of the sentence in accordance with law forthwith. 18. I am told that inadvertently another appeal being C.R.A. 731 of 2015 was subsequently filed against the selfsame judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 19. In view of the judgment delivered in the present appeal, C.R.A. 731 of 2015 stands dismissed by treating the same as on day's list. 20. Let photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties, if applied for, on urgent basis upon compliance of all formalities.