JUDGMENT : A.C. Rao, J. 1. By way of preferring the present Criminal Appeal under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant herein-original accused No. 1 has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O.), Rajkot, in Sessions (P.O.C.S.O.) Case No. 206 of 2013 dated 29-12-2017, by which the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant-original accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short). The Sessions Judge also convicted the appellant-accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("P.O.C.S.O. Act" for short). For the offence punishable under Sec. 363 of Indian Penal Code, the Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant-accused No. 1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to make payment of fine, directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months. For the offence punishable under Sec. 366 of Indian Penal Code, the Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant-accused No. 1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to make payment of fine, directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Considering the provisions of Sec. 42 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, and the punishment provided for the offences punishable under Sec. 6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, and Sec. 376 of I.P.C., and since the punishment for the offence under Sec. 6 is higher, no separate punishment for the offence punishable under Sec. 4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, and for the offence under Sec. 376 of I.P.C. has been awarded, however, for the offence punishable under Sec. 6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant-accused No. 1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 (fifteen) years with fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default to make payment of fine, directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to grant benefit of set-off under Sec. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure "Cr.P.C." for short). The learned Sessions Judge ordered to undergo all the sentences concurrently. 2. 15,000/- and in default to make payment of fine, directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to grant benefit of set-off under Sec. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure "Cr.P.C." for short). The learned Sessions Judge ordered to undergo all the sentences concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell is as under: The complainant-victim lodged F.I.R. being C.R. No. I-182 of 2013 with Gandhigram Police Station, for the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366, 376, 406, 504, 506(2), read with Sec. 4 of I.P.C. and under Secs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act. In the F.I.R. it is stated by the victim that she is aged 16 years and 9 months. The victim gave complaint before the Mahila Police Station stating that she was residing in S.K. Chowk, Jalaram Farsan Street, Gandhigram since last two months with her brother. Prior thereto she was residing in a rented house known as "Aman" situated in Limda Chowk, Gavlivad Street. She stated that since last 7 months she was residing in Rajkot and her brother was residing with her since last five months. She stated that she was serving in Airtel and prior thereto she was working in DOCOMO. Her brother is studying in Talala and her mother is residing in Venal village alone. Divorce has taken place of her mother and father. She has studied upto 12th Standard and her date of birth is 24-10-1996. The victim has further stated in the complaint that before one and quarter year when she was residing in Kodinar with her mother and brother, she associated with Mukesh Bavaji as her brother. As she wanted to purchase Scooty, Mukesh had given number of Narendrapari Gulabpari-accused No. 1, who is his cousin brother (uncle's son) and who was serving in Hero Honda. Mukesh asked her to call Narendrapari. Therefore, the victim called Narendrapari for purchasing Scooty, and thereafter, for about two days, accused No. 1 called her and he used to talk to her. Thereafter, friendship was developed between her and Narendrapari. Thereafter, when she had gone to Div with her mother and brother, Narendrapari had come there to meet her. Thereafter, the victim and the accused Narendrapari were used to talk on phone and they were in love. Thereafter, friendship was developed between her and Narendrapari. Thereafter, when she had gone to Div with her mother and brother, Narendrapari had come there to meet her. Thereafter, the victim and the accused Narendrapari were used to talk on phone and they were in love. After about one month, accused No. 1 had come to the house of the victim with his friend and asked the victim that let us go to Mangrol and the victim had gone along with the accused No. 1 at Mangrol and on the way, accused No. 1 has made proposal for love, but the victim had not replied. On the next day, when Narendrapari called her, she accepted the proposal for love and said yes. Thereafter, accused No. 1 used to call the victim and when her mother was going to Anganwadi on her duty, accused No. 1 used to come to her. Thereafter, after a period of four months, they shifted to village Velan and at that time, accused No. 1 had come to see the victim for three to four times. They both were moving under the guise to meet her brother who is studying in Talala and during that time, their love became deep and the accused No. 1 had lured her and asked her that will she marry with him. He asked her to come to Rajkot and they both will marry, and thereby, he took the victim into confidence. Under the guise to do job, in December, 2012, she started to reside in Limda Chowk, Gavlivad, Rajkot with Narendrapari. They had declared to the landlord that their engagement has been performed and they are going to be married. Thereafter, she had started service in DOCOMO and accused No. 1 was serving in the showroom of Royal Enfield Bullet. For three months, they both were sleeping separately and there was no physical relation between them. After three months, the accused No. 1 at night asked the victim that he wants to have physical relation with her and the victim said him that she is not major and after she attains 18 years, they will marry, and thereafter, he can have physical relation with her, but the Narendra did not listen and he forcefully committed intercourse with her. Thereafter, since the victim was mad in love with Narendra and they both were residing together, they used to have intercourse in 2 to 3 days. However, after a period of four months, she came to know that Narendra is married and he has two children and therefore, there was quarrel between them. They both were residing in Limda Chowk for a period of five months. Due to their dispute, the landlord get the rented house vacated. Therefore, they obtained another house on rent in S.K. Chowk, in the street of Jalaram Farsan. There Narendra had resided with her for three days. Thereafter, in April, 2013, Narendra started to reside in Rajkot with her wife. Narendra had also called her brother to reside with him. After office hours, Narendra used to come to meet her.. Sometimes, he used to stay at night at her house when her wife go to out of station. Narendra had stayed at her house for two days and had intercourse with her. When the victim was staying in Gandhigram for one and half months, Narendra had physical relation with her for four to five times. Lastly, the Narendra had intercourse with her before about one month, and thereafter, there was dispute between them. Narendra had left her since last one month and even he switched off his mobile and he was absconding. Therefore, the victim had gone to the house of the accused No. 1, however, he was not found in his house and his brother Kishor informed her that Narendra is not in contact. Therefore, she came to Rajkot and gave complaint against Narendra and his family members. The police of Gandhigram Police Station, called Narendra, his brother Kishor, his wife Kiran, his mother Prabhaben but there was compromise and in the evening Narendra and his brother Kishor had taken the victim with them. They dropped the victim at Gondal Chowkdi, saying that she should stay there and they will come in five minutes. After sometime, Kishor who is brother of Narendra and Fuva of Narendra and Anil who is friend of Anil had come and they all three threatened her. She was asked to finalise the matter or they would finalise her case. Thus, they threatened to kill her and they abused her and left. After sometime, Kishor who is brother of Narendra and Fuva of Narendra and Anil who is friend of Anil had come and they all three threatened her. She was asked to finalise the matter or they would finalise her case. Thus, they threatened to kill her and they abused her and left. It is alleged that thus, the accused No. 1 luring her into marriage, taking benefits of her innocence, done sexual intercourse with her against her wish and though he was married, he made false statement that he is not married, and thereby, committed breach of trust, and accused Nos. 2 to 4 have also abused her, threatened her to kill. Therefore, the victim gave complaint to Mahila Police Station. Thereafter, the same was registered as F.I.R. being C.R. No. I-182 of 2013 with Gandhigram Police Station, for the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366, 376, 406, 504, 506(2), read with Sec. 4 of I.P.C. and under Secs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act. 2.1. As the complaint was registered, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused, prepared arrest Panchnama of the accused, recovered the clothes of the victim and the accused, which they had put on at the time of commission of the offence, get examined the victim and the accused by Medical Officer, sent muddamal to F.S.L., recorded statements of the witnesses etc. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed Charge-sheet under Sec. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot and the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 4192 of 2013. 2.2. Since, the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate, after providing copies of the charge-sheet papers to the accused, committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 of the Cr.P.C. and the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 206 of 2013 in the Court of Sessions Judge,. Rajkot. 2.3. Thereafter, the Sessions Court framed charge against the accused at Exh. 6. Plea of the accused Nos. 1 to 4 was recorded at Exh. Nos. 7 to 10. The accused pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial, and therefore, the Sessions Court proceeded further with the trial in accordance with law. 2.4. Rajkot. 2.3. Thereafter, the Sessions Court framed charge against the accused at Exh. 6. Plea of the accused Nos. 1 to 4 was recorded at Exh. Nos. 7 to 10. The accused pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial, and therefore, the Sessions Court proceeded further with the trial in accordance with law. 2.4. The prosecution produced the following oral as well as documentary evidence: ORAL EVIDENCE : PW No. Ex.No. Particulars Remarks 1 22 Chetanbhai Pravinbhai Kubavat Panch witness 2 27 Veljibhai Lakshmanbhai Vaghela Panch witness 3 32 Sunilbhai Jivrajbhai Kanjariya Panch witness 4 36 Victim Complainant 5 59 Dikesh Mahendrabhai Kanani Brother of victim 6 77 Dr.Shetanben Prajapati Medical Officer 7 83 Sanjaybhai Manharlal Somaiya Witness 8 84 Mahendrabhai Amrishbhai Rathod I.O. 9 88 Jashvantlal Keshavlal Patel I.O. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE : Sr. No. Ex.No. Particulars 1 25 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of the victim 2 25 Panchnama of place of offence 3 27 Panchnama of place of offence 4 28 Panchnama of the body of the accused and of recovery of clothes of the appellant accused 5 5 FIR 6 56 School Leaving Certificate of the victim 7 69 Compliant given by the victim to police regarding threat administered by the accused on mobile 8 70 Statement of the victim regarding compromise 9 78 Yadi for examination of the victim by Doctor 10 79 Medical Certificate of the victim 11 85 Complaint with phone record 12 89 Yadi for sending samples of the victim to FSL 13 90 Yadi for sending muddamal to the FSL 14 91 Acknowledgement of FSL for receipt of muddamal 15 92 Reports of FSL and serology 2.5. After the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted the appellate herein-original accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. as well as under Secs. 4 and 6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, and imposed the sentence with fine, as aforesaid. 3. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-original accused No. 1 vehemently submitted that the Sessions Court erred in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Secs. 363, 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. and under Secs. 4 and 6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, and sentencing the sentence. 3.1. Ms. 3. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-original accused No. 1 vehemently submitted that the Sessions Court erred in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Secs. 363, 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. and under Secs. 4 and 6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, and sentencing the sentence. 3.1. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the case against the appellant-accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that there are no cogent and convincing evidence on record. She has submitted that in fact this is a case of no evidence, however, the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order on assumption and presumption. 3.2. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the victim in her deposition has admitted that she was in love with the accused and they both were residing together, and therefore, it is clear that no case is made out against the appellant. 3.3. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that in fact, the victim had admitted in the history before the doctor that she was in love with the appellant and she and appellant were residing together and she had sexual relation with the accused with her consent. Therefore, it is clear that the no offence is committed by the accused, however, false complaint has been filed against the accused to extort money. 3.4. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is against the evidence on record, against the provision of law and against settled legal position. 3.5. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Judge has convicted the appellant adopting a moral view, without appreciating the evidence on record in its true spirit. She submitted the Court below has used the word bad mentality many a times, in the judgment. She submitted that trial Court though reproduced the law on the issue in the judgment, however, wrongly not applied the same to the facts of the case on hand. She submitted the Court below has used the word bad mentality many a times, in the judgment. She submitted that trial Court though reproduced the law on the issue in the judgment, however, wrongly not applied the same to the facts of the case on hand. She submitted that pendency of the trial, the complainant had given an application before the Sessions Court that the accused had given threat to kill and the then Additional Sessions Judge recorded evidence of the complainant, his mother, and brother and it was found that the complainant had made false allegations. She submitted that the complainant is habitual of making false complaints. She submitted that the complainant and her relatives are not trustworthy and they are habitual to make false complaints and allegations, and therefore, and their depositions cannot be relied upon for convicting the accused. She submitted that the trial Court has not considered the cross-examination of the victim and other witnesses in its true prospective and convicted the appellant merely on the basis of examination in-chief of the prosecution witnesses without considering their cross-examinations. She submitted that the victim had left her parental home at her will and wish without any force or compulsion by the accused, and therefore, no offence under Sec. 363 is made out. She submitted that the victim continued her physical relations with the accused with her consent and knowing fully well that the accused is married. Hence, no offence can be said to have been committed for the offence under Sec. 366 is also not applicable. 3.6. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has produced on record School Leaving Certificate of the victim, however, the contents of the School Leaving Certificate are not proved and established by leading evidence or examining witness as to who issued the said School Leaving Certificate and on what basis, the age of the victim was recorded in the School Register. She submitted that tentative exhibit was given to the School Leaving Certificate to prove the same by examining proper witness to prove its contents. She submitted that School Leaving Certificate Exh. 56 is not proved strictly in accordance with law and as per the provisions of the Evidence Act. She submitted that tentative exhibit was given to the School Leaving Certificate to prove the same by examining proper witness to prove its contents. She submitted that School Leaving Certificate Exh. 56 is not proved strictly in accordance with law and as per the provisions of the Evidence Act. The trial Court erred in holding that the School Leaving Certificate is proved, though the victim in her cross-examination stated that she does not recollect the place of her birth. She submitted that merely because the victim has stated in her evidence that the birth Certificate is of her birth date, the contents of the birth Certificate cannot be said to be proved as per the provisions of the Evidence Act. She submitted that the victim has stated in her deposition that she does not know as to in which village her birth had taken place. She submitted that the School Leaving Certificate Exh. 56 is of Kodinar, though, the victim lastly studied at Velan. She submitted that neither the principal of the School of Kodinar who issued the School Leaving Certificate Exh. 56 has been examined nor the birth registration register was produced before the trial Court. She submitted that even the mother of the victim has not been examined on the aspect of date of birth of the victim. She submitted that merely because the School Leaving is exhibited, the same cannot be considered as evidence, particularly when the contents are not proved and established on leading evidence and examining witness. She submitted that the trial Court has presumed that -the victim on the date of the commission of the alleged offence was minor, though there is no cogent and convincing evidence except the School Leaving Certificate to show that she was minor at the time of commission of the alleged offence and though the contents of the School Leaving Certificate are not proved. She submitted that the age of the victim is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that in fact, the victim was major. As per the opinion of the Dentist with respect to age of the victim, who gave opinion on examination of the teeth of the victim, the age of the victim was between 17 to 21 years. She submitted that the age of the victim is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that in fact, the victim was major. As per the opinion of the Dentist with respect to age of the victim, who gave opinion on examination of the teeth of the victim, the age of the victim was between 17 to 21 years. She submitted that as per the opinion of the Ossification Test, she was aged between 17 and 20 years and as per the opinion of the Radiologist, she was aged between 17 and 21 years. Even as per the evidence of the Medical Officer, from the physical structure of the victim, no one can say that she is not adult. 3.7. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the conduct of the victim, which shows that she had relation with the accused and she had gone with the accused No. 1 on her own and stayed with him for months together and even as per her deposition, there was sexual relation after she completed 18 years. 3.8. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in fact, the victim was aware that the accused No. 1 is married. She submitted that even on 1-7-2013 when the medical examination of the victim was performed, she stated in the history before the doctor that she came to know about the accused being married only one month ago, however, she has admitted in her cross-examination that she had sent one S.M.S. on 10-2-2013 and written that "what concern you have about me, whether I be there or not, you have your wife with you, I may die or alive, now what it makes difference to you". Thus, in February, 2012 itself, she was aware that the accused is married, however, she has made false statement before the Doctor Exh. 79 that she came to know about the fact that the accused is already married only before one month. 3.9. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, in fact, the victim gave complaint on 30-6-2013, however, prior thereto she had given an application on 12-3-2013. 79 that she came to know about the fact that the accused is already married only before one month. 3.9. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, in fact, the victim gave complaint on 30-6-2013, however, prior thereto she had given an application on 12-3-2013. If the deposition of the victim is considered as a whole, it is clear that she has not supported the case of the prosecution and in fact she has turned hostile. In spite of the fact that she was aware since 10-2-2013 about the fact that Narendra was married, she stayed with the appellant and she had sexual relation with the appellant at her will. 3.10. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the victim has admitted in her deposition that in February, 2013, wife of the accused Narendra had come to stay with the accused. Thus, since February, 2013, she was aware about the fact that the accused is married and is having a wife. However, she continued to stay with the appellant and continued her physical relation with the appellant with her consent. 3.11. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as per the deposition of the victim herself, there was no sexual relationship between the accused and the victim till the victim completed 18 years. 3.12. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the conduct of the victim and the fact that the victim is not reliable and her evidence is not trustworthy. 3.13. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that it is a case of consensus and same is proved from the record itself. 3.14. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that from the record it is clear that the victim was extorting money and for extorting more money and there are evidence on record which shows that, time and again, money was transferred by the appellant from the account of the accused No. 1 to the account of the mother of the victim (Exh. 121 and 115). 121 and 115). It is submitted that for extorting more money, false complaint was filed making vexatious allegations and even false deposition is given against the accused just with a view to extort more money from the accused No. 1. Even the victim has admitted in her evidence that she has never deposited any amount in the account of her mother. 3.15. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even as per the evidence of witness Exh. 59, Kiranben (wife of the accused) had come to Rajkot and had quarrelled with the victim. However, at that time also, no complaint was filed against the accused either by the victim or his brother. The complaint is filed subsequently making false, fabricated and vexatious allegations subsequently to extort more money from the appellant. 3.16. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the accused No. 1 and the victim were residing together in a rented house, and they stayed together for months together, however, the Court below not appreciated and considered the evidence of the owner of the rented premises in its true spirit. 3.17. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the accused and the victim were in relation and said fact was known to the mother and brother of the victim also. The brother of the victim has also admitted the said fact in his deposition. 3.18. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as per the deposition of the victim, she and accused used to have sexual relation in three-four days, however, she has stated in the history before the Doctor that she has made physical relation for three to four times. 3.19. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the victim had given application to the Police Station on 12-6-2013, however, no complaint was made in the said complaint against the accused. In the said complaint there was compromise. Thereafter, to extort money, F.I.R. has been lodged belatedly making false allegations. 3.20. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that from the deposition of the victim it is clear that there was sexual relation between them after she completed 18 years with the consent of the victim. 3.21. Ms. Thereafter, to extort money, F.I.R. has been lodged belatedly making false allegations. 3.20. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that from the deposition of the victim it is clear that there was sexual relation between them after she completed 18 years with the consent of the victim. 3.21. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even as per the deposition of the victim, prior to December, 2012, she and the accused were used to meet; she was staying in Hostel of Company alone at Rajkot and that she was working in different private company. Thus, she was of independent nature since beginning and her relation with the appellant was also known to her mother and brother. 3.22. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in fact the offence alleged to have occurred prior to 14-11-2012 and at that time, P.O.C.S.O. Act was not in force, and therefore, the appellant-accused cannot be convicted under the P.O.C.S.O. Act. 3.23. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and relatives of the victim and no independent witnesses are examined and the entire investigation is faulty and speaks volume of things. It is contended that the Court below also erred in not believing the case of defence. 3.24. Ms. Ashwini K. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in the application made by the victim before registration of the F.I.R., there was no allegation of rape etc. against the accused-appellant herein. Even at that time, there was compromise taken place. Had there been any offence, she could have written about the same in her application. However, subsequently, F.I.R. has been filed with mala fide intention to extort money. 4. Present appeal is opposed by Mr. Ronak Raval, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. He has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. He has submitted that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is on appreciation of evidence and same is not perverse. He submitted that no error has been committed by the trial Court. He has submitted that the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. He has submitted that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is on appreciation of evidence and same is not perverse. He submitted that no error has been committed by the trial Court. He submitted that the prosecution has placed on record School Leaving Certificate of the victim, according to which, the victim was minor at the time of commission of the offence and relying on the same, the trial Court has rightly believed that the victim was minor at the relevant time. He submitted that from the deposition of the victim, it is clear that in spite of refusal by the victim for sexual relation, the appellant forcefully started sexual relation with the victim. Therefore, he submitted that no interference at the hands of this Court is required. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, at length. Perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction. Re-appreciated the evidence on record. 6. On perusal of the evidence on record, the following facts have emerged: 6.1. P.W. No. 1-Chetanbhai Pravinbhai Kubavat Exh. 22, panch witness of the panchnama for recovery of the clothes of the victim and accused, has deposed in her deposition that in his presence the victim had disclosed that her name is Jalpaben alias Khushi Mahendrabhai Kanani and she is aged 16 years and 9 months. He also deposed that there was no mark on the body of the victim. He also deposed that the victim informed that accused Narendrapari Gulabpari had done intercourse with her before one and half months. 6.2. P.W. No. 2-Veljibhai Lakshmanbhai Vaghela Exh. 27 has deposed in his deposition that he has signed the panchnama in the chamber of P.S.I., and not supported the case of the prosecution. 6.3. P.W. No. 3-Sunilbhai Jivriajbhai Kanjariya-Exh. 32 has stated that he has signed the panchnama. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. 6.4. P.W. No. 4-Jalpaben alias Khushiben daughter of Mahendrabhai Kanani-victim-Exh. 36 has deposed in her evidence that her date of birth is 24-10-1996. She has deposed that she was moving with the appellant-accused. She also admitted that the appellant had proposed and on the next day-she accepted the proposal of love. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. 6.4. P.W. No. 4-Jalpaben alias Khushiben daughter of Mahendrabhai Kanani-victim-Exh. 36 has deposed in her evidence that her date of birth is 24-10-1996. She has deposed that she was moving with the appellant-accused. She also admitted that the appellant had proposed and on the next day-she accepted the proposal of love. She also deposed that she and appellant used to talk on phone and used to meet. She also admitted that she and appellant used to meet in Velan village for about 5 to 7 years. She admitted that due to love with the appellant, she had shifted to Rajkot. She admitted that she and appellant was residing in a rented house of one Muslim, which is situated in Limda Chowk. She also deposed that she had stated to the landlord that her engagement with the accused has been performed and marriage would be performed. She deposed that she and appellant were used to quarrel, and therefore, the landlord get the rented house vacated. She deposed that they stayed in the rented house in Limda Chowk for six months. She further deposed that thereafter she and appellant had obtained another house on rent in the street of Jalaram Farsan, S.K. Chowk, Gandhigram. There they stayed for one month, and thereafter, the appellant called the brother of the victim and the accused-Narendra started to reside with his wife. She deposed that when the wife of the Narendra had gone in another village, Narendra had come to stay with her for two days. She also deposed that when she and Narendra were residing in Gandhigram, she had intercourse with Narendra many-times. She also deposed that she had given an application to Amrapali Chowki, Gandhigram Police Station against the appellant-Narendra and his family members on 25-6-2013. She has deposed that however, compromise had been taken place against her wish. She has deposed that thereafter accused-Narendra and his brother had taken her and dropped her on the way and asked her that they would come within 5 minutes but Narendra had not returned but his Fuva, his brother Kishor and his friend Anil had come. They threatened that she should take a final decision, otherwise, they will finalise her case. They had threatened to kill her and also abused her. They threatened that she should take a final decision, otherwise, they will finalise her case. They had threatened to kill her and also abused her. She deposed that thereafter she had given complaint to Gandhigram Police Station on 1-7-2019, however, they sent the victim to Mahila Police Station. She has deposed that the appellant told her that he is unmarried and by giving promise to marry her, committed offence of breach of trust and rape. She also deposed that Kishor, Anil and Fuva of Narendra had abused her and threatened her to kill. From her deposition, it is clear that School Leaving Certificate of Girls High School, Kodinar produced at Mark 2/4 and the learned Counsel for the defence raised objection against exhibiting the same, however, the trial Court gave tentative Exhibit number being Exh. No. 56 as per the decision in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal, 2001 (3) SCC 1 : [ 2001 (3) GLR 2024 (SC)]. In cross-examination, the victim has deposed that she has not given any application against the accused to Police Station on 25-3-2013. She has admitted that she had sent S.M.S. to the appellant on 10-2-2013. She admitted that in February, 2013, as wife of Narendrapari abused her, and she had made complaint. She admitted her hand-writing and signature in the application dated 12-6-2013. She admitted that police registered the said complaint on 12-6-2013. She admitted that as wife of Narendrapari abused her in February, 2013, she made complaint. She admitted that when she was residing in S.K. Chowk, Jalaram Street, her brother was residing with her and she was residing there with her brother before about four months from the date of filing of the complaint. She admitted that she was aware that in February, 2013, wife of the Narendra started to reside with the Narendra, and therefore, dispute had started between her and the appellant-Narendra. She also admitted that to know the whereabouts of the appellant she had gone to the house of the appellant-Narendra at Dolasa and she stayed at his house for five days. She also admitted that her brother and mother were aware her relation with the accused-Narendra. She also admitted that her mother was against the relationship, but she was not listening to her mother. She also admitted that her brother and mother were aware her relation with the accused-Narendra. She also admitted that her mother was against the relationship, but she was not listening to her mother. She admitted that she has not given any complaint prior to 25-6-2013 against the accused and she had not gone to the Police Station. She admitted that she was going to Rajkot daily for her job. She admitted that she had no fixed salary in the private company, but she was getting commission. She admitted that she was earning to. the extent she was maintaining herself and she was not in a position to give money to anyone. She admitted that she does not know where she was born. She admitted that name of her mother is Leenaben, however, in the School Leaving Certificate, in place of her mother, Meenaben is mentioned. 6.5. P.W. No. 5-Dikesh Mahendrabhai Kanani, Exh. 59 has stated in his deposition that the victim-Jalpaben is her sister. Divorce has taken place between her parents and they are three brothers and sisters. He admitted that the victim was serving in Rajkot in TATA DOCOMO in 2013 and residing alone in Rajkot. His mother and brothers and sisters were residing in Kodinar. He deposed, that when victim was serving in Rajkot, she was residing in the rented house of Nagmaben, in Limda Chowk, Galivad. He deposed that after 2 to 3 months, he started to reside with his sister at Rajkot. He deposed that he was aware about the affair of his sister-victim with the Narendra. Narendra used to come to the said house in his presence and even in his absence. He deposed that he and victim stayed in the said house for about seven months. He deposed, that thereafter, as the said locality was not liked by his sister, Narendra found another house which was in Gandhigram, S.K. Chowk, in the street of Jalaram Farsan. The said house was of one Vijaybhai. He deposed that he and his mother did not like the love-affair of his sister-victim and Narendra-appellant. He deposed that after they shifted to Gandhigram, wife of the Narendra named Kiran came to reside in Rajkot and she came to know about the love-affair of the victim and the appellant. The said house was of one Vijaybhai. He deposed that he and his mother did not like the love-affair of his sister-victim and Narendra-appellant. He deposed that after they shifted to Gandhigram, wife of the Narendra named Kiran came to reside in Rajkot and she came to know about the love-affair of the victim and the appellant. Therefore, before about one year, Narendra and his wife had come to their house and they had quarrelled with the victim and his' sister [victim] was beaten, and therefore, even complaint was also filed by the victim. He deposed that thereafter there was compromise between the victim and the Narendra-appellant and the appellant had taken the victim with him, however, he left the victim on the Gondal Cross Road saying that he is coming in 10 minutes. However, he had not returned and his Fuva, Kishor-brother of the appellant and one another person had come to the victim. They threatened the victim that she should withdraw the cases, otherwise, they will kill her. Therefore, she called his brother. 6.6. P.W. 6-Dr. Shetalben Samirbhai Prajapati Exh. 77 has deposed in her evidence that she has recorded history of the victim and the victim has stated in her history that she knows the accused-Narendrapari Gulabpari Goswami since last one and half years and she is in love with him. The victim has further stated in her history that she had resided with the accused-Narendra in Gandhigram in a rented house from December, 2012 to May, 2013. During that period, she had 3 to 4 times sexual relation with the Narendra-appellant-accused at her will. The said Doctor has deposed that she has examined the victim and the parts of the body of the victim are fully developed and there were no marks of internal or external injury. The said Doctor has further deposed that according to the Dentist, the age of the victim would be between 17 and 21 years. She further deposed that as per the opinion of the Radiologist, the age of the victim would be between 17 years and 20 years. The said docto, in her cross-examination has admitted that from the physical appearance of the victim, anybody can say that the victim is not adult. 7. She further deposed that as per the opinion of the Radiologist, the age of the victim would be between 17 years and 20 years. The said docto, in her cross-examination has admitted that from the physical appearance of the victim, anybody can say that the victim is not adult. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and considering the evidence on record, it appears that the trial Court has relied on the School Leaving Certificate and on that basis came to the conclusion that the victim was minor aged 16 years at the time of commission of the alleged offence. So the appellant-accused No. 1 has committed the offences. However, in the history before P.W. 6-Dr. Shetalben Samirbhai Prajapati who is examined at Exh. 77, the victim has stated before the Doctor that she knows the accused-Narendra Gulabpari Goswami since last one and half years and she is in love with him. The victim has further stated in her history that she was residing with the accused-Narendra in Gandhigram in a rented house since December, 2012 to May, 2013 and during that period she had 3 to 4 times sexual relation with the Narendra-appellant-accused at her will. Even the said Doctor has deposed that she examined the victim and the parts of the body of the victim are fully developed and there were no marks of internal or external injury. The said Doctor has further deposed that according to the opinion of the Dentist, the age of the victim would be between 17 and 21 years. The said Doctor has further deposed that as per the opinion of the Radiologist, the age of the victim would be between 17 years and 20 years. The said doctor in her cross-examination has admitted that from the physical appearance of the victim, anybody can say that the victim is adult. 7.1. Even from the deposition of the brother of the victim, it is clear that brother of the victim and even mother of the victim were aware about the love-affair of the victim with the appellant and they were knowing that the victim and the appellant were residing together and the appellant was used to go and meet the victim in presence of brother of the victim. 7.2. 7.2. Even from the deposition of the victim also, it is clear that she was in love with the appellant and she was residing with the appellant in a rented house and there was sexual relation between them with consent. 7.3. From the above, it is clear that there was love-affair between the victim and the appellant-accused No. 1 and they both resided together in a rented house from December, 2012 to May, 2013 and the victim had sexual relation with the accused with her consent. Therefore, as such, no offence is made out against the appellant. 7.4. It is pertinent to note that except the School Leaving Certificate of the victim, no other documentary evidence worth the name was produced on record and nobody was examined to prove even the School Leaving Certificate. Even at the time of exhibiting the School Leaving Certificate, objection was raised by the defence, however, the trial Court gave tentative exhibit to the School Leaving Certificate being Exh. No. 56 as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal, 2001 (3) SCC 1 : [ 2001 (3) GLR 2024 (SC)]. 7.5. It is settled legal position that if the entry in the School Register regarding the date of birth is made on the basis of information given by the parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value. Merely because the School Leaving Certificate was exhibited, it does not mean that the contents of the School Leaving Certificate were also proved. Mere proof of the School Leaving Certificate would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the School Leaving Certificate. The person who issued the School Leaving Certificate has not been examined. It has not come on record as to on what basis the date of birth was recorded in the School Leaving Certificate. It has also not come on record that at whose instance the date of birth was recorded in the School Registers. The person who issued the School Leaving Certificate has not been examined. It has not come on record as to on what basis the date of birth was recorded in the School Leaving Certificate. It has also not come on record that at whose instance the date of birth was recorded in the School Registers. Mere production of the School Leaving Certificate without examining the concerned witnesses and mere exhibiting the School Leaving Certificate without proving the contents of the School Leaving Certificate, it cannot be said that the age mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate has been established in accordance with law. Even otherwise, the School Leaving Certificate to prove the age of the victim is not of much evidentiary value. The prosecution has failed to place on record the Birth Certificate of the victim on record. As per settled legal position, the date of birth mentioned in the School Register of Secondary School Certificate has no probative value within Sec. 35 of the Evidence Act, unless either the parents are examined or the person on whose information the entry may have been made, is examined. In the present case, neither the parents of the victim nor the person on whose information the entry may have been made, is examined. The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the Court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the "evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue." In our opinion, the aforesaid burden of proof has not been discharged by the prosecution. Therefore, the entry in the School Leaving Certificate cannot be relied upon to definitely fix the age of the victim. 7.6. To render a document admissible under Sec. 35, three conditions must be satisfied. Firstly, the entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record, secondly, it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. An entry, relating to the date of birth made in the School Register is relevant and admissible under Sec. 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a School Register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of material on which the age was recorded. In Raja Janaki Nath Roy v. Jyotish Chandra Acharya Chowdhury, AIR 1941 Cal. 41, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court discarded the entry in the School Register about the age of a party to the suit on the ground that there was no evidence to show on what material the entry in the register about the age of the plaintiff was made. The principle so laid down has been accepted by almost all the High Courts in the country in the case of Jagan Nath v. Moti Ram, AIR 1951 Punjab 377, Sakhi Ram v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, North Bihar, Muzzafarpur, AIR 1966 Patna 459, Ghanchi Vora Samsuddin Isabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1970 Gujarat 178 and Radha Kishan Tickoo v. Bhushanlal Tickoo, AIR 1971 J.&K. 62 . In addition to these decisions, the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Madras have considered the question of probative value of an entry regarding the date of birth made in the School's register on in School Certificate in election cases. The Courts have consistently held that the date of birth mentioned in the School's register of Secondary School Certificate has no probative value unless either the parents are examined or the person on whose information the entry may have been made, is examined, Reference can be made in the case of Jagdamba Prasad v. Sri Jagannath Prasad, 1969 (42) ELR 465 (All.), K. Paramalali v. L.M. Alangaram, 1967 (31) ELR 401 (Mad.), Krishna Rao Maharu Patil v. Onkar Narayan Wagh, 1958 (14) ELR 386 (Bom.). 7.7. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, reported in 1965 (3) SCR 861 : ( AIR 1965 SC 282 ), a question arose whether the returned candidate had attained the age of 25 years on the date of his nomination. The High Court had set aside the election of the returned candidate on the ground that he was below the age of 25 years on the date of filing the nomination. The High Court had set aside the election of the returned candidate on the ground that he was below the age of 25 years on the date of filing the nomination. The Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court and upheld the election of the returned candidate on the ground that the burden of proving that the returned candidate had not attained the age of 25 years on the date of his nomination was an the election petitioner and since he had failed to prove that, the election of the returned candidate could not be set aside. The Apex Court held that an entry recorded in the birth register maintained by an illiterate Chowkidar by somebody else at his request, was not admissible and had no probative value within Sec. 35 of the Evidence Act. In the case of Ram Murti v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1029 , the date of birth of a girl mentioned in the School Certificate was not accepted. However, in the case of Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1964 SC 1625 , Apex Court accepted the date of birth of a girl as mentioned in the School Certificate as the date of birth mentioned therein was supported by an affidavit filed by the father of the girl. 7.8. In the case of Alamelu v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, reported in AIR 2011 SC 715 , the Apex Court has observed and held as under: "38. We will First take up the issue with regard to the age of the girl. The High Court has based its conclusion on the transfer Certificate, Exli. P16 and the Certificate issued by P.W. 8 Dr. Gunasekaran, Radiologist, Exh. P4 and Exh. P5. Undoubtedly, the transfer Certificate, Exh. P16 indicates that the girl's date of birth was 15th June, 1977. Therefore, even according to the aforesaid Certificate, she would be above 16 years of age (16 years 1 month and 16 days) on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 31st July, 1993. The transfer Certificate has been issued by a Government School and has been duly signed by the Headmaster. Therefore, it would be admissible in evidence under Sec. 35 of the Evidence Act. The transfer Certificate has been issued by a Government School and has been duly signed by the Headmaster. Therefore, it would be admissible in evidence under Sec. 35 of the Evidence Act. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the girl in the absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded. The date of birth mentioned in the transfer Certificate would have no evidentiary value unless the person, who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. We may notice here that P.W. 1 was examined in the Court on 9th August, 1999. In his evidence, he made no reference to the transfer Certificate (Exh. P16). He did not mention her age or date of birth. P.W. 2 was also examined on 9th August, 1999. She had also made no reference either to her age or to the transfer Certificate. It appears from the record that a petition was filed by the complainant under Sec. 311, Cr.P.C. seeking permission to produce the transfer Certificate and to recall P.W. 2. This petition was allowed. She was actually recalled and her examination was continued on 26th April, 2000. The transfer Certificate was marked as Exh. P16 at that stage, i.e., 26th April, 2000. The judgment was delivered on 28th April, 2000. In her cross-examination, she had merely stated that she had signed on the transfer Certificate, Exh. P16 issued by the School and accordingly her date of birth noticed as 15th June, 1977. She also stated that the Certificate has been signed by the father as well as the Headmaster. But the Headmaster has not been examined. Therefore, in our opinion, there was no reliable evidence to vouchsafe for the truth of the facts stated in the transfer Certificate. 39. Considering the manner in which the facts recorded in a document may be proved, this Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, 1988 Supp. SCC 604 : AIR 1988 SC 1796 , observed as follows: "The date of birth mentioned in the School's register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined..........Merely because the documents Exhs. SCC 604 : AIR 1988 SC 1796 , observed as follows: "The date of birth mentioned in the School's register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined..........Merely because the documents Exhs. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved. Mere proof of the documents Exhs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents. Since the truth of the fact, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was in issue, mere proof of the documents as produced by the aforesaid two witnesses does not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the documents. The truth or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the date of birth of the two candidates as mentioned in the documents could be proved by admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of those persons who could vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue. No evidence of any such kind was produced by the respondent to prove the truth of the facts, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi. In the circumstances the dates of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents have no probative value and the dates of birth as mentioned therein could not be accepted." The same proposition of law is reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, reported in AIR 2004 SC 175 , where the Apex Court observed as follows: "The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the Court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the "evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue"." 40. In our opinion, the aforesaid burden of proof has not been discharged by the prosecution. The father says nothing about the transfer Certificate in his evidence. The Headmaster has not been examined at all. In our opinion, the aforesaid burden of proof has not been discharged by the prosecution. The father says nothing about the transfer Certificate in his evidence. The Headmaster has not been examined at all. Therefore, the entry in the transfer Certificate cannot be relied upon to definitely fix the age of the girl." 7.9. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to note that as per settled legal position mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the Court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the "evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue". The Apex Court has consistently held that the date of birth mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate has no probative value unless either the parents are examined or the person on whose information the entry may have been made, is examined. In the present case, neither the parents nor the person on whose information the entry was recorded in the registers of the School has been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the admissibility of the School Leaving Certificate would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the girl in the absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded and such School Leaving Certificate would not be admissible in evidence under Sec. 35 of the Evidence Act. 7.10. Coming to the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 366 of I.P.C., it has to be seen whether the prosecutrix was compelled by force or induced by any deceitful means to go from her house to another place with the intention specified in Sec. 366 of I.P.C. and then was subjected to intercourse against her will. 7.11. The conduct of the prosecutrix througout indicates that what happened, was with her consent. Having scanned the entire evidence on record, we do not find an iota of evidence to establish that the prosecutrix was kidnapped with an intention to force her or seduce her to illicit intercourse or that he was knowing that she was likely to be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. We are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Secs. We are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Secs. 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code is also not sustainable. 7.12. In our opinion, the evidence of the victim does not satisfy the aforesaid test. The trial Court erroneously concluded that the girl had not willingly gone with the appellant-accused No. 1. We have stated earlier that she did not make any complaint on so many occasions when she had the opportunity to do so. We may, however, notice that even after the alleged rape, the girl continued to be a willing partner in the entire episode. Even if the prosecution version is accepted in its totality, it would be established that the victim was staying with appellant-accused from December, 2012 till April, 2013 in a rented house and she had sexual relations with the accused, even as per her own deposition. Therefore, for about 5 months, the victim stayed with the appellant-accused No. 1 and had sexual relations with the appellant with her consent. However, she did not raise any protest. She did not even complained to any witness or any other residents in the locality. Her behaviour of not complaining to anybody at any of the stages after being allegedly abducted would be wholly unnatural. Earlier prior to filing of the F.I.R. also, she had many opportunity to complaint or to run away, but she made no such effort. It is noteworthy that she made no protest during her stay with the accused in the rented houses from December, 2012 to April, 2013 and even she did not make any complaint to the police when she had visited Police Station and when her alleged compromise. She did not make any complaint to her brother who was residing with the victim or even did not make any complaint to her mother or even to the police. Even she did not make any complaint to the police when she visited for compromise. The above behaviour would not be natural for a girl who had been subject to illicit sexual intercourse. 7.13. In our opinion, the aforesaid burden of proof has not been discharged by the prosecution. Nobody from the family of the victim is examined. Even the victim does not know the place of her birth. The above behaviour would not be natural for a girl who had been subject to illicit sexual intercourse. 7.13. In our opinion, the aforesaid burden of proof has not been discharged by the prosecution. Nobody from the family of the victim is examined. Even the victim does not know the place of her birth. Nobody knows who recorded the date of birth of the victim in the School. The Headmaster of the School has not been examined at all. Therefore, the entry in the School Leaving Certificate cannot be relied upon to definitely fix the age of the victim. In our view, the trial Court's entire approach in considering the question of dates of birth was wholly misconceived. The burden to prove the fact in issue, namely, the dates of birth of victim was on the prosecution. The prosecution has also failed to prove the date of birth of the victim and that the victim was minor at the time of commission of the offence. 8. In the result, present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O.), Rajkot in Sessions (P.O.C.S.O.) Case No. 206 of 2013 dated 29-12-2017 is hereby quashed and set aside qua appellant. The appellant herein-original accused No. 1 is acquitted of the offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. and under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant-accused No. 1-Narendrapari Gulabpari Goswami is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.