JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the accused against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(i)(n) and 506 of IPC and Sections 5(l) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State and perused the material on record. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under: The victim P.W.1, a minor girl was studying in X Standard in Government High School, Bettadahalli and she used to go to her school by walk from her village, which is at a distance of about 4 kms. On her way to the school, she got acquainted with the accused and sometime, the accused used to drop her to school on his motorcycle. At that time, the accused used to force her to love him. The accused was a married man and he had driven his wife out of the house by illtreating her. On 24.03.2016, the accused took the victim to Bengaluru by threatening her and confined her in the house of his sister Nirmala for 15 days and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. He also tied a ‘Thali’ to her and later brought her to Chattanahalli village. The victim was staying in the house of accused and during her stay, accused was illtreating her physically and mentally and he was threatening her with dire consequences. Unable to bear the torture, the victim went to her parents house and stayed there for a period of about one month. However, since her neighbours started talking ill words against her, she again went and stayed in the house of accused. The accused was subjecting her to physical and mental harassment and therefore, on 16.12.2016, she went to Keresanthe to the house of one Lalita Bai, wherein she came to know that she was 3 months pregnant. Thereafter, her parents came in search of her and informed the incident to the District Child Protection Unit, Chikkamagaluru. The accused was subjecting her to physical and mental harassment and therefore, on 16.12.2016, she went to Keresanthe to the house of one Lalita Bai, wherein she came to know that she was 3 months pregnant. Thereafter, her parents came in search of her and informed the incident to the District Child Protection Unit, Chikkamagaluru. A complaint was lodged by the victim, which came to be registered in Crime No.229/2016 at Birur Police Station against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376 and 506 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed for the offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(i)(n) and 506 of IPC and under Section 5(l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act. Before the trial Court, charges were framed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to 23 and M.Os.1 and 2. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence and material on record, convicted and sentenced the accused. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal is preferred. 4. Assailing the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trail Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant is a neighbour of the victim girl. The victim had acquaintance with the accused and there was a love affair between them. She herself expressed her love towards him knowing the fact that he has deserted his wife. He submits that the entire story of the prosecution that the accused kidnapped the victim girl and committed forcible sexual intercourse is false and it is a cooked up story. He submits that even according to the prosecution, the victim went along with the accused and stayed in the house of his sister initially for a period of 15 days, which shows that the victim herself accompanied the accused and there was no threat or inducement. He submits that even according to the prosecution, the appellant has tied ‘Thali’ and married the victim girl and therefore, there is no question of committing any rape on the victim. 5. He submits that even according to the prosecution, the appellant has tied ‘Thali’ and married the victim girl and therefore, there is no question of committing any rape on the victim. 5. It is the further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has failed to record the findings with regard to the question of reliability and credibility of the witnesses and failed in not taking into consideration the circumstances, which is normally accepted as per law. He submits that the evidence of the victim girl itself is sufficient to hold that she was a consenting party. She stayed along with the accused and due to some misunderstanding and on account of tutoring, a false complaint came to be lodged. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the prosecution has failed to establish the exact age of the victim girl. He submits that P.W.7father of the victim girl has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of admission of the victim to the school, he gave her date of birth on an assumption. He submits that even P.W.6Head Master, who has issued Ex.P11Study Certificate has stated that normally the children who are born in villages will not have any date of birth certificate and they will be admitted to the school by assuming their date of birth. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the exact age of the victim by subjecting her for medical examination, hence, the trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the victim was a minor at the time of incident. The learned counsel has also contended that till the victim became pregnant, no complaint was lodged. The prosecution has failed to examine the mother and sister of the victim girl though they were named as chargesheet witnesses and those material witnesses have been deliberately withheld. Hence, he submits that the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case and seeks to set aside the same by allowing the appeal. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision in the case of ABA @ DINKAR GIRDHAR KOLI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2009(1) Crimes 322 [Bom]. 7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision in the case of ABA @ DINKAR GIRDHAR KOLI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2009(1) Crimes 322 [Bom]. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP has contended that the victim girl was a minor at the time of incident. The accused by threatening, kidnapped her and took her to his sister’s house and thereafter tied ‘Thali’ to her and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will. Merely because, she stayed along with the accused for several days does not mean that there was a valid consent on her part. He submits that the prosecution by producing Ex.P11Study Certificate and also examining the relevant witnesses has established the age of the victim. He submits that the victim became pregnant and DNA examination report marked as Ex.P19 and the evidence of P.W.15 clearly establishes that the accused is the biological father of the foetus. He submits that the victim has categorically deposed before the Court that the accused has committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will, as such, no corroboration is required. Hence, he submits that the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and accordingly, seeks to dismiss the appeal. In support of his submissions, the learned HCGP has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of R.SIDDESH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2019(5) Kar.L.J 10 (DB). 8. Having heard the rival contentions and also having perused the entire material on record, the following points arise for my consideration: 1) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(i)(n) and 506 of IPC and under Sections 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act? 2) Whether the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be interfered with? 3) What Order? 9. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined 15 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked 23 documents as Ex.P1 to 23 and M.Os.1 and 2. 10. P.W.1 is the victim girl and she is the first informant. P.W.2 is the panchwitness to Ex.P6mahazar, under which 3 photographs of motorcycle as per Exs.P7 to 9 are marked. 10. P.W.1 is the victim girl and she is the first informant. P.W.2 is the panchwitness to Ex.P6mahazar, under which 3 photographs of motorcycle as per Exs.P7 to 9 are marked. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the panchwitness to the spot mahazarEx.P3, drawn at the place where the accused is said have tied ‘Thali’ to the victim and committed sexual intercourse. The photograph of the spot is marked as Ex.P4. 11. P.W.5 is the Panchayat Development Officer, who has issued Ex.P10 with regard to assessment extract of the house where the accused was staying. 12. P.W.6 is the Head Master of SJPN School, Bettadahalli, who has issued Ex.P1Study Certificate of the victim girl. 13. P.W.7 is the father of the victim. P.W.8 is the Medical Officer, Birur Government Hospital, who has collected the blood sample of victim for DNA examination. Mahazar is marked as Ex.P5. 14. P.W.9 is the Child Protection Officer, in whose presence the statement of the victim was recorded. 15. P.W.10 is the Medical Officer, who examined the accused and issued a report as per Ex.P12. P.W.11 is the panchwitness to Ex.P5, under which blood sample of the victim was taken for DNA examination. 16. P.W.12 is the Police SubInspector, who has registered the case and issued FIREx.P13 to the jurisdictional Court. 17. P.W.13 is the Medical officer, who examined the victim girl and issued the report as per Ex.P14. FSL report Ex.P15 is marked through the said witness. 18. P.W.14 is the Investigation Officer, who after completion of investigation has filed the chargesheet. 19. P.W.15 is the Scientific Officer of FSL., Bengaluru, who issued DNA Examination Report marked as Ex.P19. 20. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 24.03.2016, the accused kidnapped P.W.1, a minor girl, from her house situated at Chattanahlli, Turuvekere taluk and thereafter, took her to the house of his sister situated in Bengaluru and tied ‘Thali’ to her and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will and after keeping her in the said house for about 15 days, took her to his village and repeated the act of sexual intercourse. Further that, he threatened her with dire consequences and repeatedly committed aggravated penetrated sexual assault, on account of which she became pregnant and thus he committed the charged offences. 21. The victim is examined as P.W.1. Further that, he threatened her with dire consequences and repeatedly committed aggravated penetrated sexual assault, on account of which she became pregnant and thus he committed the charged offences. 21. The victim is examined as P.W.1. She has deposed that, she was studying in IX Standard in Bettadahalli Government School at the time of incident. She was going to her school by walk and sometime she was going in some vehicle. The accused for about 4 days took her and dropped her to the school on his motorcycle and he was forcing her to love him. She has stated that he threatened her that if she did not accompany him to Bengaluru, then he will kill her family members. On 24.03.2016 at about 9.00 p.m., the accused took her to Birur on his motorcycle and from there he took her to Bengaluru in a bus and kept her in the house of his sister for about 15 days. There he was assaulting her and committed rape on her. He tied ‘Thali’ to her in the said house. Thereafter, he took her to the village and there she stayed in his house for about one month. At that time, the accused was physically assaulting her and committing rape on her. Thereafter, she came to the house of her father and stayed there for about one month. Since the neighbours started talking ill words against her, she again went to the house of accused. After about two days, the accused again started to assault her and threatened her saying he will pour petrol and burn her. She escaped from there and went to the house of her aunt. At that time, she was 3 months pregnant. Her father came in search of her and took her to the District Child Protection Unit, Chikkamagaluru. The Police came and recorded her statement as per Ex.P1. 22. P.W.1 has stated that on 22.12.2016, she was taken to the hospital and the doctor after examining her informed that she was pregnant. On 24.12.2016, she was taken before the Magistrate and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P2. Thereafter, she showed the place where the accused committed rape on her. Photographs of the said place was taken. At the advice of the doctor, the foetus was removed after obtaining permission from the Court. On 24.12.2016, she was taken before the Magistrate and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P2. Thereafter, she showed the place where the accused committed rape on her. Photographs of the said place was taken. At the advice of the doctor, the foetus was removed after obtaining permission from the Court. Blood sample was taken for the purpose of examination, under a mahazarEx.P5. 23. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is elicited from her that since two years she was seeing the accused and prior to that she was staying in Ankli of Chennagiri Taluk. She joined Jayaprakash Narayan School to VIII Standard. She has stated that there is no document regarding her date of birth and she was admitted to the school by her father. She has passed IX Standard. But, she did not go to X Standard. Her IX Standard examination completed in the month of March 2015. She has stated that when she was being taken to school by the accused, he did not behave in an indecent manner with her. The accused did not give any love letter to her. She has stated that she did not inform others about accused telling her that he will marry her because, he had threatened that he would commit murder of her parents. She has stated that when she left the house, her sisters were in the house but, she did not inform anything to them. She has stated that, she did not tell any one that accused was taking her forcibly by threatening her. She has stated that she alone came near her school. Thereafter, one person took her and the accused in a motorcycle. At about 9.30 – 10.00 p.m., they came to Birur and then came to Bengaluru in a bus. They went to the house of the sister of accused, situated in Chandrapura. She has stated that she did not give the ‘Thali’ tied by the accused to the Police and at the time of tying ‘Thali’ no photographs were taken. When she was in the house of the accused, the neighbours had seen her. After coming to know that she was in the house of the accused, her parents lodged a complaint to the Police. When she was in the house of the accused, the neighbours had seen her. After coming to know that she was in the house of the accused, her parents lodged a complaint to the Police. She has stated that the Police called her and enquired and at that time, she did not inform to the police that the accused threatened and committed rape on her. She has stated that the Police instructed her as to how to depose before the Magistrate and according to the same, she has deposed before the Magistrate. She has denied the suggestion that foetus which was collected in the bottle does not belong to her. She has denied the suggestion that the accused did not take her to the house of his sister and committed rape for 15 days and thereafter again took her to his house in his village and committed rape on her. She has denied the suggestion that the accused is not responsible for her to become pregnant. 24. The other material witnesses examined by the prosecution is P.W.6. He is the Head Master of the school, who issued Ex.P11 i.e., the School Study Certificate. He has stated that in 2016, the victim girl was studying in IX Standard and according to the school register, her date of birth is 22.10.2001. 25. In the cross-examination, P.W.6 has admitted that on the basis of the records pertaining to VIII Standard he has issued the certificate. He has stated that he is not aware as to what were the documents furnished at the time of admission to I Standard. He has admitted that the children born in rural areas will not have date of birth certificate and on an assumption, they will be admitted to the school. 26. P.W.7 is the father of the victim girl. He has stated in his evidence that the accused used to take his daughter on his motorcycle to drop her to school and in this regard, he had warned him. He has stated that the accused kidnapped his daughter and kept her in his sister’s house for about 15 days and during that time, tied ‘Thali’ and committed rape on her. Thereafter, he took her to Chattanahalli village and kept her there for about 2 months and harassed her. He has stated that his daughter became 3 months pregnant. He has stated that the accused kidnapped his daughter and kept her in his sister’s house for about 15 days and during that time, tied ‘Thali’ and committed rape on her. Thereafter, he took her to Chattanahalli village and kept her there for about 2 months and harassed her. He has stated that his daughter became 3 months pregnant. Hence, he took her to the District Child Protection Unit and thereafter, she was taken to the hospital, where the doctor advised her to remove the foetus. 27. In the cross-examination, he has stated that when the accused kidnapped his daughter to Bengaluru, he has lodged a complaint to the Police. He has stated that after his daughter returned from Bengaluru, he informed the Police and the Police enquired them and before the Police, the accused told that he will look after his daughter properly. It is elicited from him that on an assumption, he gave the date of birth of his daughter when she was admitted to the school. 28. The next important witness is P.W.13doctor, who examined the victim and issued ReportEx.P15. She has stated that on 22.01.2016, the Birur Police brought the victim girl aged about 16 years for examination with a history of sexual assault on her. On her examination, it was found that she was 7 weeks pregnant. Thereafter, she issued Ex.P14. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that she has not noticed any injuries on the victim’s person. 29. P.W.15 is the Scientific Officer, who after conducting the DNA examination issued the report as per Ex.P19. He has stated that after examination of the foetus and also the blood sample taken from the accused as well as the victim, he has issued the said report, marked as Ex.P19. 30. According to P.W.1victim girl, she was studying at Bettadahalli Government School in IX Standard. Perusal of her evidence goes to show that on 24.03.2016 at about 9.00 p.m. she went along with the accused in a bus to the house of his sister in Bengaluru and there the accused kept her for about 15 days and tied ‘Thali’ and committed rape on her. From there, the accused took her to his village and there she stayed for about one month. During that time, the accused physically and mentally harassed also committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will. He threatened her with dire consequences etc. From there, the accused took her to his village and there she stayed for about one month. During that time, the accused physically and mentally harassed also committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will. He threatened her with dire consequences etc. Thereafter, she came to the house of her aunt and at that time she was 3 months pregnant. Her father came in search of her and she was taken to the District Child Protection Unit, Chikkamagaluru. Thereafter, information was sent to the Police, who came and recorded her statement as per Ex.P1. 31. From the evidence of P.W.1victim girl it can be clearly gathered that on 24.03.2016, the victim herself left the house of her parents and went along with the accused to his sister’s house situated in Bengaluru. She stayed in the said house for about 15 days and thereafter, she went with the accused to his village and stayed there for about one month. She has admitted that while dropping her to school, accused did not behave in an indecent manner with her. She did not disclose to her parents about accused loving her. It is admitted by her in the cross-examination that she has not disclosed the fact that the accused threatened her saying he will commit murder of her parents and others. She has admitted that when she left the house, her sisters were present in the house. However, she did not disclose anything to them. She has also admitted that when both the accused and herself came to the bus stand, there were several persons including the employees of the KSRTC as well as the Police. However, she did not inform anything to them. She has admitted that when they reached Bengaluru at about 5.00 a.m., there were several persons near the bus stand and she did not tell anyone that the accused had forcibly brought her. She has stated that even near the house of the sister of the accused there were several houses and she did not inform anyone that the accused was committing forcible sexual intercourse and that he was threatening her with dire consequences. 32. Perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 also discloses that when she came to Chattanahalli village, her parents informed the Police and the Police secured both of them to the Police Station and enquired. 32. Perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 also discloses that when she came to Chattanahalli village, her parents informed the Police and the Police secured both of them to the Police Station and enquired. At that time, she did not inform the Police that the accused by threatening, kidnapped her and thereafter committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. 33. From the evidence of P.W.1 it cannot be said that the accused kidnapped the victim girl by enticing or threatening her with dire consequences or he forcibly took her and committed sexual intercourse against her will. The victim had an ample opportunity to disclose everything to others including the Police. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that after the victim came to the house of accused in Chattanahalli, some misunderstanding took place between them and thereafter, a false complaint was lodged. Even according to the prosecution, the accused after taking the victim girl to the house of his sister, married her by tying ‘Thali’ to her and thereafter, he committed sexual intercourse with her. 34. The evidence of P.W.13 clearly discloses that on 22.01.2016, when she examined the victim, she was 7 weeks pregnant. Her vaginal swab was collected for the purpose of sending it to FSL. 35. P.W.8 has stated that the blood sample of the victim was collected for the purpose of DNA examination. P.W.15Scientific officer has issued report as per Ex.P19. 36. P.W.15 having examined the articles sent has given a report as per Ex.P19, wherein he has concluded as under: “From the DNA profile results of the samples sent in item nos.1, 2 and 3, it is found that: 1. The foetus sent in item no.1 is of human origin and of male sex. 2. The DNA profile result of foetus sent in item no.1 is consistent with having come from the offspring of Yogisha @ Yogisha Naika and Sakibayi d/o. Lokyanaika and matching with the DNA profile result of the sample blood sent in item nos.2 and 3, respectively. The foetus sent in item no.1 is of human origin and of male sex. 2. The DNA profile result of foetus sent in item no.1 is consistent with having come from the offspring of Yogisha @ Yogisha Naika and Sakibayi d/o. Lokyanaika and matching with the DNA profile result of the sample blood sent in item nos.2 and 3, respectively. Therefore, Yogisha @ Yogisha Naika sample blood sent in item no.2 is included from being the biological father and Sakibayi d/o Lokyanaika sample blood sent in item no.3 is included from being the biological mother of the foetus sent in item no.1.” From the above evidence, it can be held that the victim girl became pregnant and her foetus was removed and sent for FSL examination and on examination it was found that the accused is the biological father and the victim is the biological mother of the foetus. Hence, the prosecution has established that the victim became pregnant on account of sexual intercourse committed by the accused on her. 37. The point which arises for my consideration is as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish that the victim was a minor at the time of incident. In this regard, it is relevant to appreciate the evidence of P.W.6Head Master, who has issued Ex.P11 and also the evidence of P.W.7father of the victim girl. 38. P.W.5 has stated that he issued the Study Certificate mentioning the date of birth of the victim as 22.10.2001. He has stated that in the year 2016, the victim was studying in IX Standard. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that the victim joined IX Standard and on the basis of the documents produced at the time of admission to VIII Standard, he has issued the certificate. He has stated that he is not aware as to the documents given at the time of admission of the victim to I Standard. He has admitted that normally, children born in rural areas will not have any birth certificates and on an assumption, they will be admitted to school. 39. It is elicited from P.W.7father of the victim girl that on an assumption, he has given the date of birth of the victim to the school at the time of her admission. 40. He has admitted that normally, children born in rural areas will not have any birth certificates and on an assumption, they will be admitted to school. 39. It is elicited from P.W.7father of the victim girl that on an assumption, he has given the date of birth of the victim to the school at the time of her admission. 40. The prosecution has strongly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 and the documents marked as Ex.P11 to establish that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. I have perused Ex.P11 issued by P.W.6. It is mentioned that the victim girl was studying in X Standard during 201617 and her date of birth is 22.10.2001. If her date of birth is taken into account as mentioned in Ex.P11, then she was minor at the time of the incident. However, it is admitted by the father of the victim that on an assumption he had given the date of birth of his daughter while he admitted her to school. P.W.6Head Master of the school has stated that on the basis of information furnished at the time of admission of the victim to VIII Standard, he has issued the Study Certificate mentioning her date of birth as 22.10.2001. It is relevant to see that what was the information furnished at the time of admission of the victim to VIII Standard by the prosecution is not forthcoming. Neither the school register nor any other register of the school has been produced and marked to conclusively hold that in the said school register the date of birth of the victim was mentioned as 22.10.2001. 41. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that apart from the above certificate issued by P.W.6 marked at Ex.P11, there are no other evidence in support of the prosecution case to hold that the victim was a minor at the time of incident. The prosecution has not conducted any medical test such as ossification test or other medical age determination test to establish that the victim was a minor at the time of incident in question. 42. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision in the case of ABA @ DINKAR GIRDHAR KOLI VS. The prosecution has not conducted any medical test such as ossification test or other medical age determination test to establish that the victim was a minor at the time of incident in question. 42. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision in the case of ABA @ DINKAR GIRDHAR KOLI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [supra] In the said decision it is held as under: “ Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 376Appellant convicted for having committed forcible sexual intercourse on prosecutrix, a student of 10th standard in school-Accused repeated sexual intercourse with her and she became pregnant and attempted to commit suicide-Trial Court concluded that prosecutrix was minor and convicted accused-Appeal-Evidence to show that prosecutrix used to meet appellant at his house and adolescent love affair appeared to be reality and not that appellant forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her-According to date of birth recorded in school register, prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age on date of incident-Basis for taking entry in school record was the information given by father of prosecutrix-Evidence disclosed that date of birth informed by father of prosecutrix was on basis of surmises-When the register maintained by school did not show the basis for entry regarding birth date, school leaving certificate could not be relied upon-Prosecution could not be said to have proved the charge.” Paras 15 to 17 of the aforesaid Judgment is extracted hereunder: “15. The Apex Court in Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. , held that when the register maintained by school does not show the basis for the entry regarding birth date, then the school leaving certificate cannot be relied upon. The relevant observations are to be found in para No. 37 and may be usefully quoted as below: 37. ...A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. The relevant observations are to be found in para No. 37 and may be usefully quoted as below: 37. ...A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a Judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted. Similar view is taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Gangadhar s/o Gonduram Tadme v. Trimbak s/o Govindrao Akingire and Ors.. 16. The standard of proof required in a criminal case is of high degree. Where there is ambiguity or doubt regarding authenticity of the birth record, it would be permissible to seek help available from other information. As stated before, the prosecutrix failed thrice in her brief educational career. Even assuming, she was admitted at the age of six (6) years in the Primary School, then also it would appear that she was more than sixteen (16) years of age at the relevant time when she started indulging in the sexual relationship with the appellant. It need not be reiterated that the case appears to be of love affair developed between the prosecutrix and the appellant. The affair fizzeled out when she became pregnant and the two (2) families quarrelled with each other. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to say that the offence falls within the ambit of Section 375 Clause 6th of the Indian Penal Code. Once it is found that the prosecutrix may not be aged below 16 years and that there was a love affair developed between the two young members of opposite sex, it goes without saying that the charge of rape cannot stick to the appellant. 17. Considering the foregoing reasons, have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge for offence of rape beyond reasonable realm of doubt. 17. Considering the foregoing reasons, have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge for offence of rape beyond reasonable realm of doubt. It is not proved with certainty that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age and as such, her consent was immaterial. The appellant, therefore, deserves acquittal on account of benefit of reasonable doubt which emerges from the circumstances and the evidence on record. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds.” 43. The above decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the absence of production of any school admission register or extract and in the absence of any medical examination report with regard to the age of the victim, it cannot be conclusively held that on the basis of Ex.P11Study Certificate that the victim was a minor at the time of incident particularly when the father of the victim girl has specifically admitted that he has given the date of birth at the time of admission of the victim on surmises. Though P.W.6Head Master has stated that he issued the certificate on the basis of information furnished at the time of admission of the victim to VIII Standard, however, the source of such information is not produced. Hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to establish that the victim was a minor at the time of incident. As such, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 44. The decision relied upon by the learned HCGP in the case of R.SIDDESH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [supra] is not applicable to the present case as in the said case from the evidence of Head Mistress and medical evidence, it was proved that the victim was a minor. However, it is not so in the case on hand. 45. It is a well settled principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, on a cumulative reading and perusal of the entire material on record, I am of the considered view that the learned trial Judge has misread the prosecution evidence including the evidence of the prosecutrix to convict the accused. The Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence is therefore not sustainable in law. 46. In the present case, on a cumulative reading and perusal of the entire material on record, I am of the considered view that the learned trial Judge has misread the prosecution evidence including the evidence of the prosecutrix to convict the accused. The Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence is therefore not sustainable in law. 46. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : The appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2018 passed in Special Case [PCSOA] No.11/2017 by the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge at Chikkamagaluru is hereby set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(i)(n) and 506 of IPC and under Sections 5(l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act and he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.