JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. Since both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2016, passed by learned Special Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 14-S/7 of 2013, whereby accused-respondent, Prakash Chand was acquitted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter to be called as “POCSO Act”), read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as “IPC”), whereas, accused-respondent, Ram Lal was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, read with Section 376 IPC, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeals, as per the prosecution story, are that on 18.06.2013 during night, accused Ram Lal contacted the prosecutrix on mobile of her sister and asked her to accompany him, so as to marry him, to which, the prosecutrix refused. However, accused Ram Lal threatened the prosecutrix to defame her, so, the prosecutrix agreed to accompany him and left her house without informing anyone and met the accused in a nallah. The accused took the prosecutrix to forest, where she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse twice and thereafter she was taken to Drobar Kainchi, where one Tata Sumo vehicle was parked, in which, besides driver Feroz Khan, co-accused Prakash Chand was also sitting. The prosecutrix was taken to the house of accused Prakash Chand and she was left there. On 20.06.2013, when accused Prakash Chand returned to his house he also committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. In the meantime, on finding the prosecutrix missing, Naratu Ram (father of the prosecutrix) carried out search for the prosecutrix, but she was not found anywhere. Naratu Ram on suspicion that the prosecutrix had been kidnapped, lodged a complaint with the police, on the basis of which, FIR, Ext. PW-2/A came to be registered at Police Station, Bagha. On 21.06.2013, accused Ram Lal visited the house of Prakash Chand and took the prosecutrix to the house of his cousin at Ropar, where they stayed for a night. PW-2/A came to be registered at Police Station, Bagha. On 21.06.2013, accused Ram Lal visited the house of Prakash Chand and took the prosecutrix to the house of his cousin at Ropar, where they stayed for a night. On 23.06.2013, the cousin of accused Ram Lal turned the accused and the prosecutrix out from his house and on the same day, while they were waiting for the bus at Slapper in rain shelter, SI Deva Singh accompanied by Naratu Ram, father of the prosecutrix, spotted them. The prosecutrix was identified by Naratu Ram vide memo, Ext. PW-2/C, and site plan of recovery, Ext. PW-21/A was prepared. The prosecutrix on enquiry disclosed that she was kidnapped by accused Ram Lal on 18.06.2013. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and accused Ram Lal were taken to Police Station, Bagha, where on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix, accused Ram Lal was arrested. On 23.06.2013, medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. Geetanjali Thakur and she was found to have been subjected to sexual intercourse. She issued MLC, Ext. PW-3/B in this regard. The medical officer preserved blood, urine, swab from vulva, swab from introitous, swab from posterior fornix, slides for material from vulva introitous and posterior fornix alongwith clothes, i.e. kurta, salwar, legging, dupatta, underwer, pubic hair, hair from head, nail scratching of the prosecutrix, which were handed over to the police for chemical examination and the prosecutrix was handed over to her father vide memo, Ext. PW-2/D. On an application moved by S.I. Deva Nand, ossification test of the prosecutrix was conducted, according to which, the radiological age of the prosecutrix was found between 17 to 19 years. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Arki, in pursuance of application moved by S.I. Deva Nand, in which the prosecutrix alleged that she had been kidnapped by accused Ram Lal and co-accused Prakash Chand and thereafter both of them subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. On 23.06.2013, medical examination of accused Ram Lal was conducted by Dr. Manjeet Singh Sen, the then Medical Officer, CHC, Darlaghat and he found the accused capable of performing sexual intercourse, regarding which, he issued MLC, Ext. PW-7/B. The undergarments of accused Ram Lal alongwith sample of pubic hair were preserved and handed over to the police. On 23.06.2013, medical examination of accused Ram Lal was conducted by Dr. Manjeet Singh Sen, the then Medical Officer, CHC, Darlaghat and he found the accused capable of performing sexual intercourse, regarding which, he issued MLC, Ext. PW-7/B. The undergarments of accused Ram Lal alongwith sample of pubic hair were preserved and handed over to the police. On 26.06.2013, while in police custody accused Ram Lal alongwith the prosecutrix, her father and other police officials went to Jhajjar and identified the place in a forest, where he committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on 18.06.2013, twice. The place was also identified by the prosecutrix, regarding which memo, Ext. PW-2/E, was prepared by ASI Rattan Chand. On 26.06.2013, accused Ram Lal also gave identification of the house of co-accused Prakash Chand, where the prosecutrix was kept by him. The prosecutrix identified the room and bed in that house, where she was subjected to sexual intercourse by accused Prakash Chand. The bed sheet was sealed with nine seals of seal impression 'U’, and was taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-2/G. Identification memo, Ext. PW-2/F, was prepared alongwith spot map, Ext. PW-20/E, and spot was photographed. On 27.06.2013, accused Prakash Chand was arrested, his medical examination was conducted by Dr. Manjeet Singh Sen and he was found capable of performing sexual intercourse, regarding which, MLC, Ext. PW-7/D was issued. The medical officer preserved underwear, undershirt, pubic hair, swab from glance and shaft of penis of accused Prakash Chand and handed over the same to police for chemical examination. On 30.06.2013, accused Ram Lal identified the house of his cousin, where the prosecutrix was kept by him and was subjected to sexual intercourse during the night of 22.06.2013. The identification memo, Ext. PW-2/H in this regard was prepared. The bed sheet, identified by the prosecutrix, on which she was subjected to rape by accused Ram Lal, after putting in a cloth parcel and sealing with nine seals of seal impression 'H’, was taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-2/J. The spot was photographed and spot identification map, Ext. PW-20/J, was prepared. On 01.07.2013, while in police custody, accused Prakash Chand identified his house in village Malangan, vide memo, Ext. PW-17/A, where he had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Site plan, Ext. PW-20/K, was also prepared in this regard. PW-2/J. The spot was photographed and spot identification map, Ext. PW-20/J, was prepared. On 01.07.2013, while in police custody, accused Prakash Chand identified his house in village Malangan, vide memo, Ext. PW-17/A, where he had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Site plan, Ext. PW-20/K, was also prepared in this regard. The date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix alongwith copy of pariwar register and copy of birth and death register was obtained from Gram Panchayat, Mangal, according to which, date of birth of the prosecutrix was 10.01.1997. On an application moved by ASI Rattan Chand, blood samples of both the accused were taken for DNA profiling by Dr. Surinder Singh, which were handed over to the police after sealing the same alongwith sample seal. The vehicle, i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HP-01- 0432 alongwith its documents, was taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-4/A. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court, under Sections 363, 366-A, read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, read with Section 376 of IPC. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as twenty one witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., in which they denied the case of the prosecution in its entirety. In defence, four witnesses have been examined on behalf the accused persons. 4. The learned Court below, vide judgment dated 01.04.2016, acquitted accused Prakash Chand for the commission of offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act, read with Section 376 of IPC, whereas accused Ram Lal was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, read with Section 376 of IPC and sentenced as follows: “1) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 4 of POCSO Act, read with Section 376 of IPC. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. (2) to undergo rigorous rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 363 of IPC. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. (2) to undergo rigorous rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 363 of IPC. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. (3) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 366 of IPC. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently, hence the present appeals. 5. Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-convict has argued that PW-11, Gian Chand, while appearing in the witness box, has not deposed that the prosecutrix told him or the police that she was sexually assaulted by the accused. He has further argued that neither the prosecutrix disclose to her family members that she was being threatened by the accused, nor she told anything about her’s being raped to the family members of accused Prakash Chand, where she stayed for three days, and her version which came for the first time in the police report, is not reliable. He has argued that the prosecutrix herself accompanied the accused and as per the prosecution case, she was also using the mobile phone given by the appellant-convict. He has argued that as at the time of alleged occurrence, the prosecutrix was above the age of 18 years, no case is made out against the appellant-convict. Lastly, he has argued that the conviction of appellant Ram Lal is without any evidence and just on the basis of surmises and conjectures and as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant-convict beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, he is required to be acquitted. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that learned Court below has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, which is reliable and trustworthy and as the prosecution has proved the guilt of respondent-accused Prakash Chand too, he is also required to be convicted and the appeal filed by accused Ram Lal is required to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that learned Court below has rightly acquitted the respondent and the judgment of acquittal, needs no interference. 7. 6. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that learned Court below has rightly acquitted the respondent and the judgment of acquittal, needs no interference. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, we have gone through the record carefully and in detail. 8. First of all, as far as the act of accused persons are concerned, the statement of the prosecutrix is very material, who appeared in the witness box as PW-12 and deposed that she left the school in the year 2013 and before leaving the school, she was having acquaintance with accused Ram Lal for 6-7 months. The accused had given her a Samsung mobile, having mobile No. 98058-45431. He used to talk to her on this number and used to ask her to marry him. On 18.06.2013, accused again asked her to go with him so as to marry him and when she refused, he threatened that he would defame her. On this, she agreed to go with him to the nallah. When they reached that nallah, accused asked her to accompany him towards forest, which she refused, but accused again threatened her, on which, she accompanied him to the forest. In the forest accused committed wrong act with her twice. From there accused took her to the road at Drobar Kainchi, where Tata Sumo vehicle was parked. In that vehicle there were two persons, one was driver and other was Prakash Chand. She was taken in that vehicle to Barthi in the house of accused Prakash chand, where she was left. On 20.06.2013, accused Prakash came there and raped her during night hours, thereafter he left the house. On 22.06.2013, accused Ram Lal came to that house. Again stated that he had come on 21.06.2013 and then took her to Ropar on 22.06.2013, where they stayed for a night and during the night Ram Lal tried to rape her and also slapped her. On 23.06.2013, owner of the house, turned them out from the house. Thereafter, when accused Ram Lal was bringing her back to his house and when they were waiting for the bus at Slapper in the rain shelter, she was spotted by her father and police officials. She was brought to Police Station, Bagha, where her statement was recorded. On 27.06.2013, she was taken to the Court and her statement was recorded by the Magistrate. She was brought to Police Station, Bagha, where her statement was recorded. On 27.06.2013, she was taken to the Court and her statement was recorded by the Magistrate. Thereafter, she was taken to hospital at Arki for medical examination, but no lady doctor was present there, accordingly she was taken to CHC Kunihar. After medical examination, the doctor took her clothes and blood sample into possession. She was also taken to Solan for X-ray examination. Thereafter, she was taken to house of accused Prakash Chand at Piplughat and she identified the house to be the same house, where she was sexually assaulted. The bed sheet of the bed was taken into possession. She also identified the room at Ropar, where she stayed with the accused. The identification memo was prepared and the bed sheet, on which the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her, was taken into possession, vide memo Ext. PW-2/J, which bears her signatures. She also identified the forest, where accused Ram Lal had raped her and memo of identification of that place was prepared, which is Ext. PW-2/E and bears her signatures. The prosecutrix, in her cross-examination, has deposed that accused Ram Lal used to talk to her on mobile at least once in a day. The accused Ram Lal used to threaten her by saying that he would disclose to her family members that he had given her mobile and used to talk to her. She further deposed that in her mobile phone there was a nude photo of her, which was transferred to the mobile phone of the accused, due to which, she used to fear about her being defamed by the accused. This photo was taken about four months back from 17-18th June, 2013. She feigned ignorance as to when this photo was transferred by the accused from her mobile. This photo was taken in her house when she was taking bath. She came to know about this photo only when accused threatened her about this photo on his mobile and thereafter she deleted it. She deposed that the place where accused Ram Lal raped her in the forest was a plain field. She tried to manhandle the accused, when he committed sexual intercourse with her and when she tried to save herself from the accused, she received some scratches on her body, but now they are not visible. She deposed that the place where accused Ram Lal raped her in the forest was a plain field. She tried to manhandle the accused, when he committed sexual intercourse with her and when she tried to save herself from the accused, she received some scratches on her body, but now they are not visible. As per this witness, the accused raped her twice in the same place and after committing first rape, the accused again raped her after five minutes. She tried to run from there after first rape, but accused caught hold of her from her arms. She did not try to resist the second rape, as her hands were tied with chunni. Accused Ram Lal took her upto the vehicle with tied hands. She deposed that in the house of accused Prakash Chand, there were three persons, i.e. father, mother and bhabhi of Prakash Chand. She stayed in that house from 18th to 21st June, 2013. On 20.06.2013, during night, accused Prakash Chand tried to rape her, but she did not disclose this fact in the morning to his family members. On 22.06.2013, accused Ram Lal took her to Ropar in a bus. She had not requested any passenger, traveling in the bus, to save her. 9. The statement of the prosecutrix also required to be gone into alongwith the statements of other witnesses. PW-1, Brij Lal, has deposed that on 20.06.2013, he remained associated with the police for investigation of the case. Nanak Chand was also with him. In their presence, Naratu Ram produced age certificate/school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix to the police, according which, date of birth of the prosecutrix was 10.01.1997. He had also produced a black coloured Samsung mobile set before the police. The mobile and the age certificate were taken into possession by the police in their presence, vide memo, Ext. PW-1/A, which bears his signatures. 10. PW-2, Complainant-Naratu Ram (father of the prosecutrix), has deposed that on 16.06.2013, at about 4:00-5:00 p.m., his daughter was talking to someone on mobile phone. He asked her as to whom she is talking and she told him that she is talking to her friend. He took the mobile phone from her and noted the mobile number on which his daughter was talking. The number was 98572-22593. He asked her as to whom she is talking and she told him that she is talking to her friend. He took the mobile phone from her and noted the mobile number on which his daughter was talking. The number was 98572-22593. He made a call on that number from his mobile phone and came to know that the person is talking from Mandi. However, the person did not disclose his name. On 18.06.2013, his daughter ran away from the house during night. She did not take anything from the house. He searched for his daughter in his relation, but she was not found anywhere. In her missing, he suspected the involvement of the person with whom his daughter was talking on 16.06.2013 and lodged a report with the police. On 20.06.2013, he went to the school of his daughter and brought her age certificate. Thereafter, he handed over the age certificate and mobile set to the police, which were sealed by the police in cloth parcels, on which he signed as a producer. The age certificate and mobile set were produced by him before the police, in presence of Nanak Chand and Brij Lal. On 23.06.2013, he along with police officials went to Slapper and found his daughter and accused Ram Lal sitting in the rain shelter. The police prepared memo of identification and custody, Ext. PW-2/C, and got it signed from him. Thereafter, the police took his daughter to the hospital, first at Darlaghat and then to Kunihar for medical examination. On 18.06.2013, his daughter disclosed that she had been raped 2-3 times in the forest and thereafter, she was taken in a vehicle to the house of Prakash. His daughter took them to the forest and identified the place, where she had been raped by accused Ram Lal. That place in the forest was also identified by accused Ram Lal and identification memo of the spot was prepared by the police. Thereafter, he alongwith police officials went to the house of Prakash, where his daughter identified the bed in the room, where she was raped by both the accused. The police prepared memo of identification of the house of accused Prakash and took into possession the bed sheet, which bears his signatures, signatures of his daughter and accused Ram Lal. Thereafter, he alongwith police officials went to the house of Prakash, where his daughter identified the bed in the room, where she was raped by both the accused. The police prepared memo of identification of the house of accused Prakash and took into possession the bed sheet, which bears his signatures, signatures of his daughter and accused Ram Lal. He alongwith his daughter and police officials also went to Ropar, where his daughter told him that she and accused Ram Lal had stayed in that house and there also accused committed sexual intercourse with her. The room and the bed sheet on the bed had been identified by his daughter and that bed sheet was also took into possession by the police. Memo of identification of that spot was prepared by the police, which bears his signatures, signatures of his daughter and accused Ram Lal. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that the statement of his daughter was recorded by the police in the rain shelter. He feigned ignorance whether the police obtained signatures of his daughter on such statement or not. He also feigned ignorance as to whether vehicles from Bilaspur side had crossed that rain shelter, where his daughter had been found. He further deposed that the police did not stop any vehicle. From the rain shelter where his daughter was found, people take buses to go to Kol Dam, Harnola, Bohat, Kasol etc. He could not say anything how big is the house of Prakash. He denied that in the house of accused Prakash, his parents, brother and Bhabhi are also residing. He admitted that the house is at a distance of about 30-35 feet from Piplughat chowk. When they reached in the house of accused Prakash, his parents were present there. He feigned ignorance whether the police had conducted verification from some villagers about the other persons residing in the house or not. He also feigned ignorance about the dates of birth of his children. He denied that he got wrong date of birth of his daughter. He admitted that he belongs to Rajpoot caste, whereas accused Ram Lal belongs to Lohar caste. He denied that as he belongs to higher caste and accused Ram Lal belongs to lower caste, he instituted a false case against him. 11. PW-3, Dr. He denied that he got wrong date of birth of his daughter. He admitted that he belongs to Rajpoot caste, whereas accused Ram Lal belongs to Lohar caste. He denied that as he belongs to higher caste and accused Ram Lal belongs to lower caste, he instituted a false case against him. 11. PW-3, Dr. Geetanjali Thakur, Medical Officer, CHC, Kunihar, has deposed that on 23.06.2013, on an application moved by SI/SHO, P.S. Bagha, for medical examination of the prosecutrix, she examined her and observed as under: “On history patient unmarried, LMP 28.05.2013, menarche 15 minutes. General physical examination. Patient is conscious, cooperative and well oriented about space, person and time. On examination, pulse 90/minute, B.P. 104/70, respiration rate 20/minute, built average Ht-153 cms, weight 45 K.G. Secondary Sexual characters developed. Breast developed normal. Pubic hair present. Axillary hair present. No foreign hair or any substance present on body. Clothing worn at the time of alleged sexual assault. (1) Kurta frock type of blue and skin coloured and legging skin coloured. No stains of blood found and no any other stain present. (2) No foreign material found. Tears of cloth found on kurta and legging. Clothing changed on 19.06.2013 and taken bath. Clothing worn on 20.06.2013, pink and white coloured kurta and salwar with dupatta. Had changed clothes on 22.06.2013 and had taken bath on 21.06.2013 and had washed clothes on 21.06.2013. Undergarments, panty black in colour not washed and changed, no blood stains found. Extra Genital examination: (1) No marks of injury found on breasts, cheek, lips and thighs. (2) Abrasion on throat of approximately .5 mm x .5 mm brownish in colour with no oozing of fresh blood. (3) Abrasion mid clavicular region .5 mm x .5 mm brownish in colour with no oozing of fresh blood. (4) Abrasion on left shoulder of approximately .5 mm x .5 mm brownish in colour with no oozing of blood. (5) Abrasion on left arm approximately 14.5 cm below from shoulder joint, brownish in colour with no oozing of fresh blood. (6) Abrasion on right iliac fossa of approximately 1 mm x .5 mm brownish in colour. Genital examination: (1) Pubic hair present about ½ cm long not matted. (2) No abrasion or contusions present on external genetalias labia major partly lowering labia minora. (3) Perspeculum no fresh or recent tear over hymen. No signs of bleeding. (6) Abrasion on right iliac fossa of approximately 1 mm x .5 mm brownish in colour. Genital examination: (1) Pubic hair present about ½ cm long not matted. (2) No abrasion or contusions present on external genetalias labia major partly lowering labia minora. (3) Perspeculum no fresh or recent tear over hymen. No signs of bleeding. No injuries present over vagina wall. (4) Pervaginum introitous admit two finger and is lax. Vagina lax no tenderness. Urine pregnancy test is negative. (5) Abrasion on left arm approximately 14.5 cm below from shoulder joint, brownish in colour with no oozing of fresh blood. Specimens taken for biological and chemical examination. (1) Blood for toxological and blood group for examination. (2) Urine for HCG and chemical examination. (3) Swab from valva. (4) Swab from introtious (5) Swab from posterior osterior fornix. (6) Slides for material from vulva introitous and posterior fornix. (7) Clothes, one kurta of blue and skin coloured. Lagging of skin coloured. Kurta, Salwar and dupatta of pink and white coloured. Panty black in colour. Pubic hair. UPT card, hair from head. Nails scratching. X-ray lower and of humerus. X-ray ulna. X-ray upper and of radius, Metacarpals and proximal phalanges for age determination. She issued MLC, Ext. PW-3/B, which bears her signatures. On the basis of SFSL report, she opined that there is nothing to suggest that recent sexual intercourse has not taken place. The injuries mentioned in MLC can be caused by a fall and also by nail scratches, but are not possible by forceful act. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that tears of the hymen heal up approximately within 7-10 days. She further deposed that no tears on hymen or injury found on examination of the prosecutrix. She admitted that in case of sexual assault, there are possibility of injuries on thighs and genital of such a victim. She also admitted that in case of admission of two fingers in the vaginal part, the female is exposed to sexual activities even before 18.06.2013. She admitted that the prosecutrix was sexually active prior to the date of examination, may be for some period, exact period cannot be ascertained. 12. PW-4, Firoz Khan, has deposed that accused Prakash Chand is known to him. He is resident of Piplughat and his village is at a distance of about 7 kms from his village. He was employed by him as driver. 12. PW-4, Firoz Khan, has deposed that accused Prakash Chand is known to him. He is resident of Piplughat and his village is at a distance of about 7 kms from his village. He was employed by him as driver. On 18.06.2013, Prakash chand telephonically informed him to take the vehicle for his personal work. After 7-10 days, he received a telephonic message from Police Station Bagha that his vehicle was involved in some case and the same was liable to be impounded. On which, he handed over his vehicle alongwith its documents and keys to the police vide memo, Ext. PW-4/A, which bears his signatures. This witness, in his cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, denied that on 18.06.2013 he was asked by accused Prakash Chand to bring the vehicle to Drobar to bring his relative. In cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he admitted that it is entered in the log book that from which place the vehicle is taken to which place and the fare charged is also entered. He denied that accused Prakash had not given him Rs. 1500/- for the said traveling. 13. PW-5, Balak Ram, Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Mangal, has deposed that on an application moved by the police, he supplied the date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix to the police. He also supplied the copy of pariwar register of Naratu Ram to the police. He further deposed that initial birth entry of the prosecutrix, Ext. PW-5/D, has also been prepared and attested by him and the same is correct as per the original record. This witness, in his cross-examination, feigned ignorance on the basis of which document, the original entry, Ext. PW-5/D, has been made in the register. He admitted that whenever intimation regarding birth is given by any of the family members, the same is entered in the record without getting it verified. 14. PW-6, Pyare Lal Chauhan, has deposed that on 20.06.2013, he was officiating as Principal of the school. He further deposed that the prosecutrix was student of the school from 07.04.2011 till March, 2013. The certificate, Ext. PW-1/B, was given to the father of the prosecutrix by him on his request, which bears his signatures and is correct as per the original record. This witness, in his cross-examination, has admitted that they enter the date of birth in their records on the basis of pariwar register entry. The certificate, Ext. PW-1/B, was given to the father of the prosecutrix by him on his request, which bears his signatures and is correct as per the original record. This witness, in his cross-examination, has admitted that they enter the date of birth in their records on the basis of pariwar register entry. He deposed that before 9th Class, the prosecutrix was student of Government Middle School, Bagha. The date of birth of the prosecutrix was entered by him on the basis of certificate issued by Bagha School. 15. PW-7, Dr. Manjeet Singh Sen, Medical Officer, CHC, Darlaghat, has deposed that on 23.06.2013, on an application moved by the police, he conducted the medical examination of accused Ram Lal and observed as under: “Person was brought by police for medical examination with history of accused in rape case. On examination, person is conscious, cooperative, well oriented to time and place. Following points noted. There are no marks of struggle present on body of the person examined: (1) The genital organs of the person examined are of normal development. (2) There is no evidence of diseases of testes and epididymes. (3) There is no evidence of venereal diseases. (4) There is no evidence of organic diseases of nervous system. (5) There are well marked secondary sex characters. (6) Both the testes are present in the scrotum.” After medical examination, he issued MLC, Ext. PW-7/B, and opined that the person examined is capable of performing sexual act. On 27.06.2013, on an application moved by Police Station, Bagha, he examined accused Prakash Chand and observed as under: (1) There are not any struggle marks on body anywhere. (2) The genital organs of the person examined are of normal development. (3) There is no evidence of diseases of testes and epididymes. (4) There is no evidence of venereal diseases. (5) There is no evidence of organic diseases of nervous system. (6) There are well marked secondary sex characters. (7) Both the testes are present in the scrotum.” After medical examination, he issued MLC, Ext. PW-7/D and opined that the person examined is capable of performing sexual act. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that there is no instrument for examination of nervous system in CHC, Darlaghat. He further deposed that for finding out venereal disease, no blood test of the accused had been conducted. PW-7/D and opined that the person examined is capable of performing sexual act. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that there is no instrument for examination of nervous system in CHC, Darlaghat. He further deposed that for finding out venereal disease, no blood test of the accused had been conducted. He denied that blood test is must for finding out presence of venereal disease. 16. PW-8, Constable Rajinder Singh, has deposed that on 26.06.2013, he alongwith ASI Rattan Chand, Lady Constable Meera, Naratu Ram and the prosecutrix went to village Jhajhar in government vehicle, where they were taken across the nallah. Accused Ram Lal showed to them a field having grass, where he had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix also identified the place and told them that she had been raped by the accused at that place on 18.06.2013. About this, spot identification memo, Ext. PW-2/E, was prepared, which bears his signatures and also the signatures of Naratu Ram, Lady Constable Meera Devi, accused Ram Lal and the prosecutrix. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that the field shown to them was having very small grass, which was plain. He further deposed that the spot was not photographed at that time. 17. PW-9, Lady Constable Meera Devi, has deposed that on 26.06.2013, she alongwith accused Ram Lal, the prosecutrix, Naratu Ram, Constable Rajinder Kumar and ASI Rattan Singh, went to the house of Kasu Ram at Piplughat, where accused Ram Lal told to have kept the prosecutrix from 18.06.2013 till 22.06.2013. The prosecutrix also told the police that in the southern room of that house, accused Ram Lal raped her on 20.06.2013. The prosecutrix identified the bed sheet of the double bed and told that on 20.06.2013 the same bed sheet was on that bed. The bed sheet was taken into possession by the Investigation Officer and was sealed in a cloth parcel by affixing nine seals of seal impression 'U’. The seal after use was entrusted to Naratu Ram. The cloth parcel containing bed sheet was taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-2/G, which bears her signatures. They also went to village Jhajhar in government vehicle, where they went in a cowshed type room, adjacent to that room there was a grassy field, which accused Ram Lal identified to be the same place, where he stated to have raped the prosecutrix. PW-2/G, which bears her signatures. They also went to village Jhajhar in government vehicle, where they went in a cowshed type room, adjacent to that room there was a grassy field, which accused Ram Lal identified to be the same place, where he stated to have raped the prosecutrix. This spot had also been identified by the prosecutrix. Memo of identification of the place was prepared, which was signed by her, Constable Rajinder Singh, Naratu Ram, the prosecutrix and accused Ram Lal. This witness, in her cross-examination, feigned ignorance about the distance between police station and village Jhajhar. She also feigned ignorance as to how much time they remained at Jhajhar. She deposed that in the house of Kasu at Pilpughat, there were four persons at that time. However, she does not know their names. She feigned ignorance whether the spot at Jhajhar was photographed or not. 18. PW-10, Dr. Surinder Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Arki, Solan, has deposed that on application, Ext. PW-10/A, moved by the police for taking blood samples of the accused persons for DNA profiling, he took the same, which were handed over by him to the police alongwith prescription slips, Exts. PW-10/B and PW-10/C. He made endorsement on the application, Ext. PW-10/A in red circle. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that whenever blood samples of any person are to be taken, his/her consent is taken, but in this case, he did not take the consent of the accused persons before taking their blood samples. He admitted that in prescription slips, Exts. PW-10/B and PW-10/C, he did not note down the identification mark of the person whose samples are being taken. 19. PW-11, Gian Chand, has deposed that he was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Malangan till 2011 and on 26.06.2013, remained associated for investigation with the police. He was called by Bali Ram (brother of accused Prakash Chand) and then he went to the house of Bali Ram, where one bed sheet was taken into possession from the bedroom, which was identified by the prosecutrix. The bed sheet was sealed by the police in a cloth parcel and taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-2/G, which bears his signatures, also the signatures of other witnesses and the prosecutrix. The spot was photographed. The bed sheet was sealed by the police in a cloth parcel and taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-2/G, which bears his signatures, also the signatures of other witnesses and the prosecutrix. The spot was photographed. Accused Ram Lal and the prosecutrix identified the house of accused Prakash Chand and memo of identification of the house was prepared by the police, which also bears his signature, signatures of other witnesses and the prosecutrix. On 01.07.2013, the vehicle and documents of Firoz Khan, driver of Barthi were taken into possession, vide memo, Ext. PW- 4/A, which also bears his signatures. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that in the house of accused Prakash Chand, his parents, elder brother and Bhabhi also used to reside. He feigned ignorance as to who used to sleep in that room from where bed sheet was taken into possession. He admitted that accused Prakash is married. He denied that he has some disputes with the family members of the accused. 20. PW-13, Constable Amar Nath, has deposed that on 17.07.2013, MHC, Police Station, Bagha, handed over two vials of blood, sealed with a seal 'A’ each, alongwith letter addressed to FSL, Junga, which were taken by him to FSL, Junga on 17.07.2013, vide RC No. 09.2013, and were deposited in the same condition. PW-14, Constable Vikram Sharma, has deposed that on 03.07.2013, MHC, Police Station, Bagha, handed over three sealed cloth parcels to him. One parcel was having six seals of seal impression 'N’. Again stated the seals were five. The other two parcels were having six seals (each) of seal impression 'U’. He took these parcels, vide RC No. 08/2013, alongwith docket and handed over the same in sealed condition. PW-15, Lady Constable Kanta, has deposed that on 30.06.2013, she alongwith ASI Rattan, other police officials, prosecutrix, Naratu Ram and accused Ram Lal, went to Milmil Nagar, Ropar, where the prosecutrix identified the house, regarding which, identification memo, Ext. PW-2/H, was prepared. A bed sheet from the bed, on which the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted, was taken into possession, vide memo, Ext. PW-2/J. On the same day the prosecutrix, also identified Prakash Chand, accused, regarding which, identification memo, Ext. PW-2/K, was prepared. 21. PW-16, Lady Constable Kiran Bala, has deposed that 23.06.2013, she alongwith SI/SHO Deva Nand, H.C. Suresh, Constable Shashi, went in search of the prosecutrix. PW-2/J. On the same day the prosecutrix, also identified Prakash Chand, accused, regarding which, identification memo, Ext. PW-2/K, was prepared. 21. PW-16, Lady Constable Kiran Bala, has deposed that 23.06.2013, she alongwith SI/SHO Deva Nand, H.C. Suresh, Constable Shashi, went in search of the prosecutrix. They reached Slapper bridge, at about 1:00 p.m., where toward Kol Dam in the rain shelter they found accused Ram Lal and prosecutrix sitting. Memo of identification of the prosecutrix was prepared, which is Ext. PW-2/C. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded and thereafter she was handed over to her father, vide memo, Ext. PW-2/D. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that it took them three hours to cover the distance from Police Station, Bagha to Slapper. She feigned ignorance whether any shopkeeper or some inhabitants on the road side had been associated in the proceedings or not. As per this witness, no statement of the prosecutrix was recorded in the rain shelter. 22. PW-17, Constable Shashi Pal, has deposed that on 01.07.2013, he alongwith ASI Rattan Chand, Kamaljit, L.C. Kanta, driver Rakesh Kumar and accused Prakash Chand, went to the house of accused Prakash Chand at Malangan in government vehicle. Where he disclosed that he kept the prosecutrix in that house from 18.06.2013 till 22.06.2013. He also disclosed that in the room towards southern side, he had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Memo of identification of the house was prepared. Thereafter, they went to Barthi. The prosecutrix was also with them, where the vehicle, its key and documents were taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-4/A. 23. PW-18, Head Constable Jagdish Chand, has deposed that on 20.06.2013, SI/SHO Deva Nand handed over application, Ext. PW-1/B, to him for generating FIR on computer. This FIR was signed by ASI Rattan Chand. Again stated that application, Ext. PW-1/B was handed over to him by ASI Rattan Chand and not by SI Deva Nand. On 20.06.2013, ASI Rattan Chand deposited one cloth parcel with him, which was sealed with four seals of seal impression 'H’, which he entered in malkhana register at Sl. No. 36/13. On 24.06.2013, Lady Constable Kiran deposited four cloth parcels, sealed with six seals (each) of seal impression 'N’ with him. In addition to these four cloth parcels, she also deposited three cloth parcels with him, sealed with a seal of seal impression 'N’. No. 36/13. On 24.06.2013, Lady Constable Kiran deposited four cloth parcels, sealed with six seals (each) of seal impression 'N’ with him. In addition to these four cloth parcels, she also deposited three cloth parcels with him, sealed with a seal of seal impression 'N’. Alongwith all these parcels, a docket and seal impressions had also been deposited by her. All these articles were entered by him in malkhana registered at Sl. No. 38/13. On the same day, Constable Shashi Kumar deposited a cloth parcel with him, sealed with three seals of seal impression of 'U’. Another cloth parcel sealed with five seals of seal impression of 'U’ had been deposited alongwith docket and seal impression, which was entered by him in malkhana register at Sl. No. 39/13. On 26.06.2013, ASI Rattan Chand deposited a cloth parcel, sealed with nine seals of seal impression 'U’ alongwith sample of seal with him, which was entered by him in malkhana register at Sl. No. 40/13. On 28.06.2013, ASI Rattan Chand deposited a cloth parcel, sealed with nine seals of seal impression 'U’ alongwith docket with him, which was entered in malkhana register at Sl. No. 41/13. On 30.06.2013, ASI Rattan Chand also deposited a cloth parcel, sealed with nine seals of seal impression 'H’ alongwith sample of seal with him, which was entered by him in malkhana register at Sl. No. 42/13. On 15.07.2013, ASI Rattan Chand again deposited two vials, sealed with seal of seal impression 'A’ alongwith docket with him, which were entered by him in malkhana register at Sl. No. 43/13. The case properties entered at Sl. No. 38 to 42, were sent by him to FSL Junga, through Constable Vikram, vide RC No. 8/2013. The case property entered at Sl. No. 43/13 was sent by him to FSL, Junga, through Constable Amar Nath, vide RC No. 9/13, who deposited the same with FSL Junga on the same day. 24. PW-19, Constable Sanjog Kumar, has deposed that he conducted videography of the recording of the statement of prosecutrix. He prepared CD of the videography, which is Ext. PW-19/A-1 and Ext. PW-19/A-2. PW-20, ASI Rattan Chand (Retired), has deposed that on 20.06.2013, Naratu Ram came to the police station and moved application, Ext. PW-2/B, which was handed over by him to MHC for registering FIR. After FIR, Ext. PW-2/A, he made endorsement, Ext. PW-20/A, on application, Ext. He prepared CD of the videography, which is Ext. PW-19/A-1 and Ext. PW-19/A-2. PW-20, ASI Rattan Chand (Retired), has deposed that on 20.06.2013, Naratu Ram came to the police station and moved application, Ext. PW-2/B, which was handed over by him to MHC for registering FIR. After FIR, Ext. PW-2/A, he made endorsement, Ext. PW-20/A, on application, Ext. PW-2/B, which bears his signatures. Naratu Ram also produced school leaving certificate and a Samsung mobile set alongwith SIM before him, which were sealed by him in a cloth parcel and were taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-1/A. On 26.06.2013, he took custody of accused Ram Lal alias Sonu from Police Station, Darlaghat and brought him to Police Station, Bagha. From Police Station, Bagha, he alongwith accused Ram Lal, the prosecutrix, her father and other police officials went to Jhajhar, where accused Ram Lal and the prosecutrix identified the house and place, where accused Ram Lal stated to have raped the prosecutrix. To this effect, identification memo, Ext. PW-2/E, was prepared. Site plan regarding identification was also prepared, which is Ext. PW-20/C. Thereafter, they went to village Malangan, where the prosecutrix identified the house of accused Prakash Chand and also the bed, where she was stated to have been raped by Prakash Chand on the night of 20.06.2013. The bed sheet, on which she was raped, was sealed in a cloth parcel by affixing nine seals of seal impression 'U’ and taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-2/G. The identification memo of that place was prepared, which is Ext. PW-2/F. On 27.06.2013, accused Prakash Chand was arrested at Bagha and on 28.06.2013, he was medically examined in PHC, Darlaghat. On 30.06.2013, he alongwith accused Ram Lal, Naratu Ram, prosecutrix and other police officials, went to Minmin Nagar, Ropar, where prosecutrix identified the room and the bed, on which accused Ram Lal raped her on the night of 22.06.2013. The identification memo to this effect was prepared, which is Ext. PW-2/H. The bed sheet of the bed was sealed in a cloth parcel by affixing nine seals of seal impression 'H’ and was taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-2/J. The spot map of the place was prepared and spot was photographed. The identification memo to this effect was prepared, which is Ext. PW-2/H. The bed sheet of the bed was sealed in a cloth parcel by affixing nine seals of seal impression 'H’ and was taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-2/J. The spot map of the place was prepared and spot was photographed. On 01.07.2013, he alongwith accused Prakash Chand and other police officials, went to village Malangan, where accused identified the bed in the room of his house, on which he raped the prosecutrix on the night of 20.06.2013. The Ex- Pradhan, Gian Chand was also present there. The identification memo and site plane of that house was also prepared. On 07.07.2013, he moved application, Ext. PW-5/A before Secretary Gram Panchayat Kandar for obtaining birth certificate of the prosecutrix and copy of pariwar register of birth and death. On 15.07.2013, he moved application, Ext. PW-10/A before Medical Officer, Arki for taking blood sample of both the accused. On 01.07.2013, he took into possession the vehicle, i.e. Tata Sumo, bearing registration No. HP-01-0432 alongwith its key and documents, vide memo, Ext. PW-4/A. In cross-examination, he deposed that in the house of Prakash his father, mother, brother, bhabhi and wife live jointly, but he did not take their statements separately. However, they disclosed him that the prosecutrix told them to be wife of accused Ram Lal. He further deposed that he did not verify from the school record of the prosecutrix, as to how many times she failed in the school. He admitted that he has not taken the call details of mobile numbers 98572-20593, 88943-28845 and 98058-45431. 25. PW-21, S.I. Deva Singh, Investigation Officer of the case, has deposed that on a secret information that the prosecutrix and the accused were coming back from Punjab to Himachal, he alongwith complainant Naratu Ram and other police officials went in search of the prosecutrix and the accused in government vehicle. When they reached near Slapper bridge, they found prosecutrix and the accused sitting in the rain shelter. The prosecutrix told them that accused Ram Lal is the same person, who took her with him on 18.06.2013. He prepared recovery memo of the prosecutrix, Ext. PW-2/C, which was signed by the complainant. The site plan of the recovery, Ext. PW-21/A, was also prepared. The prosecutrix and the accused were brought to Police Station, Bagha, where statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr. He prepared recovery memo of the prosecutrix, Ext. PW-2/C, which was signed by the complainant. The site plan of the recovery, Ext. PW-21/A, was also prepared. The prosecutrix and the accused were brought to Police Station, Bagha, where statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr. PC was recorded. An application for conducting the medical examination of the prosecutrix was moved. Accused Ram Lal was interrogated and was accordingly arrested. On 24.06.2013, medical reports of the prosecutrix were collected and the same day, the prosecutrix was handed over to her father, vide memo, Ext. PW-2/D. On 27.06.2013, application, Ext. PW-21/B was moved before Judicial Magistrate, Arki, for recording the statement of the prosecutrix and after getting her statement recorded, the case file was handed over to ASI, Rattan Chand. On 25.06.2013, an application, Ext. PW-21/C was moved for conducting ossification test of the prosecutrix. After receiving the FSL reports, supplementary challan was filed in the Court. This witness, in his cross-examination, has admitted that on receiving secret information about the coming of the prosecutrix and the accused from Punjab, he did not associate any independent witnesses. He also admitted that the reference of three mobile phone numbers in the challan had not been verified by him, nor call details of these numbers were obtained by him. 26. In defence, HC Suresh Kumar was examined as DW-1, who deposed about the case property of the accused. DW-2, Bali Ram, has deposed that accused Prakash Chand is his younger brother. On 27.06.2013, police visited their house and took into possession the bed sheet from his bed room. He further deposed that in his house six persons reside. He deposed that he saw the prosecutrix for the first time when she visited his house on 27.06.2013 with the police. This witness, in his cross-examination, admitted that his room, room of Prakash Chand and the room of his parents are separate. He denied that on 18.06.2013, the prosecutrix came to his house alongwith accused Ram Lal and Prakash Chand and stayed there till 21.06.2013. DW-3, Nand Lal (brother of accused Ram Lal), has deposed that personal search articles of accused Ram Lal were got released by him. It was one Nokia mobile phone, model number 1209, and cash amount of Rs. 300/-. This mobile set does not have bluetooth and camera. DW-3, Nand Lal (brother of accused Ram Lal), has deposed that personal search articles of accused Ram Lal were got released by him. It was one Nokia mobile phone, model number 1209, and cash amount of Rs. 300/-. This mobile set does not have bluetooth and camera. DW-4, Neeraj Kumar has deposed that Nokia handset 1209 does not have camera, bluetooth and memory card. He further deposed that no data can be transferred from this mobile to any other mobile and similarly no data can be transferred from other mobile to this mobile. 27. From the statement of the prosecutrix, the allegation which has come against accused Ram Lal, is that, he was threatening the prosecutrix to defame her, as such, she accompanied him to the nallah and thereafter to the forest, where he allegedly raped her. However, as to what type of threat accused was giving to her and why she did not tell anything in this regard to her family members, is unexplained. The other allegation which has come in the statement of the prosecutrix that accused Ram Lal was having her nude photo in his mobile, remains unproved, as the mobile which accused was using, was without bluetooth, camera and memory card and as per DW-4, no data can be transferred from other mobile to this mobile. This story also seems to be concocted and to strengthen the case that it was accused Ram Lal, who took the prosecutrix with him out of threat. The prosecutrix, in her cross-examination, has admitted that she was using the mobile set given to her by accused Ram Lal and she used to talk with the accused at least once a day. She also admitted that she did not tell anyone in her family about the mobile set. If the statement of the prosecutrix is seen in its entirety, it cannot be held that she went with the accused out of threat, rather from her statement it seems that she went with the accused on her own, as she was in acquainted with the accused and was having in relation with him from long time. 28. Further the case of the prosecution was that at the time of alleged occurrence the prosecutrix was less then 18 years of age. 28. Further the case of the prosecution was that at the time of alleged occurrence the prosecutrix was less then 18 years of age. However, regarding age of the prosecutrix nothing was said by her father when he appeared in the witness box as PW-2, except that she was born in the year 1997. Every father suppose to know the exact date of birth of his child, but PW-2 only gave the year of birth of his daughter, which makes his statement qua age of the prosecutrix doubtful. To prove the age of the prosecutrix, though the prosecution has also examined PW-6, Pyare Lal Sharma, who issued school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix, but on the basis of this school leaving certificate, it is unsafe to conclude that the prosecutrix was only 16-17 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. Learned Court below while answering this fact held that there is nothing to infer that date of birth of the prosecutrix has been wrongly recorded in the records maintained in the Panchayat and school, but it is for the prosecution to prove that it was correctly recorded. PW-5, Balak Ram, Secretary, Gram Panchayat in his statement stated that date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix was issued by him as per record of pariwar register, however nothing has been proved by prosecution, who got recorded this date of birth in the pariwar register. When difference is only with respect to small period for the prosecutrix to attain majority, the strict proof is required to establish her exact date of birth, as smallest suspicion in such circumstances is of great significance. In the present case as per the medical opinion the age of the prosecutrix was in between 17 to 19 years at the time of alleged occurrence and in these circumstances it will be unsafe to hold that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of occurrence. 29. In Satbir Singh vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh, latest HLJ 2012 (HP) 741, a coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the entry made in pariwar register regarding date of birth cannot be relied upon, as entry in the pariwar register is not based on birth and death certificate. 30. 29. In Satbir Singh vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh, latest HLJ 2012 (HP) 741, a coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the entry made in pariwar register regarding date of birth cannot be relied upon, as entry in the pariwar register is not based on birth and death certificate. 30. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Negi Ram, this aspect has further been dealt with in detail, relevant extracts of the judgment is as under: “18. It is well settled at this stage that primary evidence to prove the date of birth of a person is the entries in the register at the time of his/her admission in the primary school. The record qua declaration of date of birth of the child made by his/her parents or guardian at the time of admission in primary school should also be there to substantiate the entries in the register. The name of parent/guardian at whose instance the child was admitted in the school should also be disclosed. It is only on the basis of such material on record, the date of birth as find mentioned in the record produced in evidence can be believed as true and correct. In the case in hand, it is the certificate Ext. PW-6/A issued by the Headmaster, Primary School, Cheeh has been relied upon. As a matter of fact, the extract from the admission register should have been obtained and produced in evidence. The admission register along with form/declaration made by a person at whose instance the prosecutrix was admitted in the school should have been produced during the course of recording prosecution evidence, in order to prove the extract of parivar register. The certificate Ext. PW- 6/A no doubt is stated to be issued on the basis of entries in the admission register, however, for want of declaration and also as to who has disclosed the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 1.5.1994 at the time of her admission in the school, the certificate Ext. PW-6/A cannot be termed to be primary evidence and rather secondary. The apex Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 392 has held as under: “30. The prosecution also failed to produce any Admission Form of the school which would have been primary evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix.” 19. Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Chhatisgarh Vs. The apex Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 392 has held as under: “30. The prosecution also failed to produce any Admission Form of the school which would have been primary evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix.” 19. Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Chhatisgarh Vs. Lekhram, AIR 2006 SC 1746 , has held that the register maintained in a school is admissible in evidence to prove the date of birth of the person concerned, if it is proved that the same has been maintained by the authorities in the discharge of their public duty and there is evidence to show as to who had disclosed the date of birth of such person at the time of his/her admission in the school. 31. In the case in hand, the father of the prosecutrix could not disclose exact date of birth of his daughter and when, as discussed above, the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the date of birth of the prosecutrix is unreliable and when medical opinion is that the age of the prosecutrix was in between 17 to 19 years at the time of alleged occurrence and without there being any conclusive proof with regard to her correct date of birth, it is clear that the prosecutrix was major at the time of alleged incident. Accordingly, this Court finds that learned Court below has wrongly appreciated the law to this aspect while holding that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. As far as the wrong act committed by accused Ram Lal, as alleged by the prosecutrix, the same has not been proved by the prosecution, because statement of the prosecutrix to that effect is not reliable and trustworthy, in view of the attending facts and circumstances, as disclosed by her in her statement. As far as the wrong act committed by accused Ram Lal, as alleged by the prosecutrix, the same has not been proved by the prosecution, because statement of the prosecutrix to that effect is not reliable and trustworthy, in view of the attending facts and circumstances, as disclosed by her in her statement. The allegation of the prosecutrix against co-accused Prakash Chand that he raped her in his house, also seems to be unreliable, because as per the statement of DW-2, Bali Ram, he denied having seen the prosecutrix in his house prior 27.06.2013 and if it is presumed that the prosecutrix stayed in the house of accused Prakash Chand from 18.06.2013 to 21.06.2013, why she did not disclose the wrong act done by accused Prakash Chand with her to his family members, though it has come on record that in that house accused Prakash Chand, reside alongwith his parents, Bhabhi and brother. Further the prosecutrix has failed to explain why she did not disclose anyone about her’s being kidnapped and raped by accused Ram Lal at the busy place like Ropar and in the bus while traveling to Ropar. Why she keep mum throughout, makes her statement wholly unreliable. The golden principle of criminal jurisprudence system is that benefit of doubt of smallest suspicion is required to be given to the accused. 32. In view of the aforesaid decisions and discussion made hereinabove, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused Ram Lal beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant-convict Ram Lal is allowed and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, read with Section 376 of IPC. As far as appeal against accused-respondent Prakash Chand is concerned, the same needs no interference and is dismissed as such. Consequent upon the impugned judgment, accused Ram Lal, who is presently serving out the sentence, hence, if not required in any other case, be set free forthwith, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court so that in the event of any appeal against this judgment is preferred, his presence in the appellate Court be secured. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court so that in the event of any appeal against this judgment is preferred, his presence in the appellate Court be secured. The bail bond so furnished shall remain in force for a period of only six months. Release warrant be prepared accordingly. The appeal is finally disposed of.