JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. The appellant has assailed the judgment and order on sentence dated 11.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1995 whereunder while acquitting other accused persons, the appellant, who was accused No. 3 is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code ("I.P. Code" for short). The appellant is directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 363, simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500, in default to go further imprisonment for 6 months of the offence under Section 366 and to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year. All the sentences are directed to ran concurrently. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal as could be gathered from the impugned judgment and connected material are that 15 days prior to 13.09.1994 victim-daughter (P.W. 5) of Manubhai Jairambhai (P.W. 1)-original complainant was kidnapped by the appellant which intent to marry her against her will and to seduce her to illicit intercourse. The acquitted accused Nos. 1 & 2 abated the appellant in kidnapping P.W. 5. P.W. 1, therefore, lodged written complaint in respect of the incident with the Botad Police Station on the basis of which an FIR vide C.R. No. 156 of 1994 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 114 of the I.P. Code was registered. 3. After conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Bhavnagar. As the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case under Section 209 of the Code to the Court of Sessions, where the case came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 106 of 1995. 4. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused vide Exhibit-2. The same was read over and explained to the accused - appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, adduced documentary and ocular evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. 5. 4. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused vide Exhibit-2. The same was read over and explained to the accused - appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, adduced documentary and ocular evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the statement under Section 313 of the Code of the accused-appellant came to be recorded. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and arguments of learned APP and learned advocate for the appellant accused, convicted the appellant accused of the charges by the impugned judgment and order. 6. Heard Mr. J.M. Budhbhatti, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent-State. I also perused the record of Sessions Case No. 106 of 1995. 7. Mr. Budhbhatti, learned advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that there is no conclusive proof about the age of P.W. 5. He submitted that it is very clear from the evidence of P.W. 11-Principal of the School that the date of birth of P.W. 5 was entered in the general register of the school on the basis of school leaving certificate of the earlier school which the victim had attended. Relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796 . He submitted that learned trial Judge has committed an error in recording the conclusion that P.W. 5 was aged around 15 years of age at the time of incident. It is his further submission that the delay of 15 days in filing the complaint which is not properly explained. He submitted that P.W. 1 could have filed complaint in the police instead of filing an application under Section 97 of the Code in the Court of learned Magistrate. He also submitted that P.W. 5 has stated in her statement before the learned Magistrate that she had contracted love marriage with the appellant. He further submitted that the evidence of doctor (P.W. 9) does not reveal that the rape was committed on P.W. 5. He submitted that it is clear from the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W. 14) that the appellant and P.W. 5 knew each other and there was a love affair between them. He further submitted that the evidence of doctor (P.W. 9) does not reveal that the rape was committed on P.W. 5. He submitted that it is clear from the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W. 14) that the appellant and P.W. 5 knew each other and there was a love affair between them. Hence, he submitted that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 8. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that it is clear from the evidence of Principal of the school (P.W. 11) that P.W. 5 was minor at the time of incident. He further submitted that P.W. 5 has stated in her testimony that the appellant had committed rape on her against her wish. He further submitted that victim-P.W. 5 had also stated in history before he doctor (P.W. 9) that the appellant had committed rape on her. It is her submission that FSL report reveals that stains of semen were found on cloths of P.W. 5 and the semen match the blood group of the appellant. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for interference in this appeal. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796 in paragraph No. 14 has held as under (only relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow):- "14. ......The date of birth mentioned in the scholar's register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. It is entry in the scholar's register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by 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............." 10. This Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mulji @ Mahesh Valubhai Kathrotia, (2016) 2 GLR 1441 has observed as under in paragraph No. 12:- "12. This Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mulji @ Mahesh Valubhai Kathrotia, (2016) 2 GLR 1441 has observed as under in paragraph No. 12:- "12. Apart from the above, a perusal of the provisions of the Bombay Primary Education Rules and more particularly, Rule 130 thereof, reveals that every child seeking admission for the first time into an approved school is required to produce a certificate of age signed by its parents. In the case of illiterate parents, the certificates are required to bear their thumb impression attested by a literate person other than a teacher of the school to which the child seeks admission. It is the date of birth given in this certificate which is required to be entered in the School (General) Register. Thus, at the time when the child seeks admission for the first time into an approved school, the birth date is required to be entered on the basis of a certificate of age signed by its parents. In the facts of the present case, from the testimony of Ranjanben Girdharbhai Upadhyay, it is evident that no such certificate signed by the parents of the victim had been obtained at the time when admission was sought in the school. Under the circumstances, the entry made in the school register with regard to the date of birth of the victim is not in consonance with the provisions of Bombay Primary Education Rules." 11. The prosecution examined Mavjibhai Karmasibhai Dalwadi (P.W. 3) who was working as Principal of the school which P.W. 5 last attended. It appears from his evidence that P.W. 5 joined the school in 5th standard and her date of birth as mentioned in school's register was 18.06.1979. It does not emerge from his evidence as to on what basis the date of birth of P.W. 5 was entered in the school register. However, as he has stated that P.W. 5 was admitted in 5th class in the school, the date of birth would have been entered in the school register on the basis of school leaving certificate issued by the earlier school from where P.W. 5 had passed 4th standard. However, as he has stated that P.W. 5 was admitted in 5th class in the school, the date of birth would have been entered in the school register on the basis of school leaving certificate issued by the earlier school from where P.W. 5 had passed 4th standard. Hence, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi (supra), the date of birth reflected in Exhibit-48 School Leaving Certificate has no evidentiary or probative value and cannot be considered as a conclusive of the age of P.W. 5. 12. It emerges from the evidence of Investigating Officer that the appellant and P.W. 5-victim knew each other very well and there was exchange of letters between them indicative of relationship between them. It has also emerged on record after elopement, the appellant and P.W. 5 got married and the marriage was registered as well. P.W. 5 does not say in statement under Section 361 that the marriage between her and the appellant was performed under threat or coercion. On the contrary, in her statement Exhibit-6 recorded upon her production under Section 97 of the Code before the learned Magistrate, she has stated that love marriage was performed at Drangdhra between her and the appellant. 13. It is also very relevant that neither father-P.W. 1 nor P.W. 5-victim has taken steps to annul the marriage between the appellant and P.W. 5. It is thus eminently clear that there was a relationship between the appellant and P.W. 5. It is also clear that P.W. 5 eloped with the appellant without there being any threat or coercion, and therefore, I am of the view that in absence of conclusive proof about the age of P.W. 5 and the consensual relationship between her and the appellant, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P. Code cannot be sustained. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and order on sentence dated 11.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1995 convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of I.P. Code is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 15. The judgment and order on sentence dated 11.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1995 convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of I.P. Code is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 15. The appellant is on bail and hence, his bail bonds stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. Fine, if paid by the appellant, is ordered to be refunded forthwith. 16. Record and Proceedings is ordered to be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.