JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 8.8.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 59 of 1997, whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one years and ordered to pay Rs. 200/- fine for offence under Section 363 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of one month was imposed. The appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 366 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two months was imposed. The appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 700/- for offence under Section 376 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of three months was imposed. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.3.1996 at about 7 O' clock in the morning, daughter of the complainant left for Salamba to sell wood brought from the Forest with Lilaben, Sarpiben and others. When they were returning, the appellant and Karansinh and deceased accused took away the victim, by threatening to kill on the edge of knife. When the complainant inquired about the victim, he came to know that she was taken by Raju Rama, Karansinh and present appellant. The complainant, therefore, talked to Dilubhai, Rajiyabhai and Sarpanch and others and upon inquiry came to know that three persons were seen in the village, however, the victim was not with them. Thereafter, the complainant approached Father Joseph at Rajpipla and as per his advise, complaint was lodged with Sagbara Police Station being C.R. No. I-12/1996 for the offence under Sections 323, 363, 366, 376, 506 (2) and 114 of IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Thereafter, the complainant approached Father Joseph at Rajpipla and as per his advise, complaint was lodged with Sagbara Police Station being C.R. No. I-12/1996 for the offence under Sections 323, 363, 366, 376, 506 (2) and 114 of IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2.1 During the course of investigation, police recorded statement of witnesses, drawn necessary panchnama and arrested accused and as there was sufficient evidence connecting respondent with crime in this case, charge sheet was filed. Since the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch and numbered as Sessions Case No. 59 of 1997. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 2.2 During the course of trial, the prosecution has laid following oral as well as documentary evidence:- Oral Evidence: S. No. Name Exhibit 1. Dajiyabhai Jaglabhai-Complainant 7 2. Prosecutrix 9 3. Lilaben Dajiyabhai 19 4. Rajuben Dajiyabhai 20 5. Saidiben Narsingbhai 22 6. Bamniben Vijabhai 23 7. Narpatbhai Kalsiyabhai-Panch Witness 32 8. Gorakhbhai Chhitarbhai-Panch Witness 35 9. Dorubhai Dharmabhai-Panch Witness 37 10. Aatarsing Gujariyabhai-Panch Witness 39 11. Dr. Vinaychand L. Patel 47 12. Dr. Sunilkumar M. Patel 53 13. Chandreshkumar S. Pandya 60 14. Bharatbhai T. Vasava 67 15. Ashok H. Sonvane 70 16. Mahendrasinh N. Rathod 72 Documentary Evidence: S. No. Name Exhibit 1. Original complaint. 8 2. Panchnama of physical condition of the victim as well as the accused. 33 3. Panchnama of the place of offence shown by the accused. 34 4. Panchnama of physical condition of the accused. 36 5. Panchnama of the place of offence. 38 6. Police Yadi. 48 7. Certificate of OPD treatment given to the victim. 49 8. X-ray of the victim. 50 9. Medical Certificate of the victim. 51 10. Medical certificate of accused no. 1. 52 11. Note for referring the witness. 55 12. Medical papers of the victim of treatment at Baroda. 56 13. Sonography report of Dr. Gohil. 57 14. Medical certificate of the treatment to the victim at Baroda. 58 15. Register extract regarding the age of the victim. 62 16. School certificate of the victim. 63 17. Letter of Investigation officer, Sagbara. 68 18. Letter received from FSL. 76 19. Yadi for sending muddamal to FSL. 77 20. Yadi from FSL. Sonography report of Dr. Gohil. 57 14. Medical certificate of the treatment to the victim at Baroda. 58 15. Register extract regarding the age of the victim. 62 16. School certificate of the victim. 63 17. Letter of Investigation officer, Sagbara. 68 18. Letter received from FSL. 76 19. Yadi for sending muddamal to FSL. 77 20. Yadi from FSL. 78 21. FSL report. 79 22. Serological report. 80 2.3 Thereafter, further statement of the accused was also recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein he has denied the incriminating evidence led by the prosecution. After completion of trial, learned Judge convicted the accused for the offence, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, present appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused. 3. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the material placed on record as well as the impugned judgment. 4. Mr. Y.V. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that present accused has been convicted as an abettor. According to him, there is no evidence on record to suggest that present accused has in any way abetted the crime, which was committed by main accused-Rajaram. While referring to entire evidence on record, Mr. Shah has submitted that the so-called crime of rape is alleged to have been committed by the deceased accused-Rajaram, whereas present accused was not near the place of offence. 4.1 Mr. Shah has also submitted that as per the evidence of the complainant, age of the victim has been stated to be 14 years, however, if the evidence of the complainant is minutely perused, it would appear that on the date of deposition i.e. 22.7.1998, age of his daughter was 22 to 23 years and considering the date of incident, age of the victim would be more than 18 years. He has contended that, therefore, there is no question of convicting present accused for the offences alleged against him. According to him, the complainant himself has stated that his daughter and Rajaram left for Maharashtra. 4.2 While referring to the evidence of the victim, he has stated that the victim has admitted the fact that there was compromise between the parties and the accused Rajaram had to pay money to her father and that assurance was not fulfilled by Rajaram. 4.2 While referring to the evidence of the victim, he has stated that the victim has admitted the fact that there was compromise between the parties and the accused Rajaram had to pay money to her father and that assurance was not fulfilled by Rajaram. 4.3 While referring to the evidence of Lilaben, he has contended that the theory of threatening the victim on the edge of the knife is brought on record for the first time. He has also referred to other evidence and has stated that those witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the version of the prosecution. While referring to the evidence of Dr. Vinay, Exh.47, he has stated that as per the medical evidence, age of the victim would be between 14 to 17 years. He has also contended that necessary evidence regarding date of birth of the victim has not been produced by the prosecution and only school leaving certificate has been produced and the person who has been examined has not made it personally and it has been relied on, on the basis of earlier school leaving certificate. According to Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the accused, though primary evidence regarding birth date was from Panchayat, said evidence has been concealed and, therefore, birth date tried to be proved from school leaving certificate cannot be considered to be a correct one. While assailing the impugned judgment, he has submitted that learned trial Court has not taken into consideration all these aspects and committed serious error of law and facts in convicting the accused. He has prayed to allow present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment. 5. Per contra, Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any serious error in convicting the accused and imposing sentence on him. While referring to the evidence on record, she has also submitted that at the time of the incident, the victim was minor and she was less than 18 years of age. She has also contended that while narrating the history before Doctor, the victim has given name of present accused and as per medical certificate as well as school leaving certificate, the factum of birth date of the victim to be 1.6.1981 is proved. She has also contended that while narrating the history before Doctor, the victim has given name of present accused and as per medical certificate as well as school leaving certificate, the factum of birth date of the victim to be 1.6.1981 is proved. She has also contended that all the witnesses including the victim, her parents, sister, friend, have supported the case of the prosecution. She has also stated that there is material on record regarding birth date then ossification test is immaterial. While referring to the evidence of victim, learned APP has submitted that the victim in her deposition has clearly stated that present accused was accompanying main accused-Rajaram and other accused and, hence, charge under section 114 of IPC is deemed to be proved and as there is no perversity in the impugned judgment, the same is sustainable in the eyes of law and this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment. 6. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 7. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. 8. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. 8. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused is connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged. 9. Considering the contentions raised by learned advocates on both sides and material placed on record, it is an admitted fact that the main accused Rajaram has died during the pendency of the proceedings and present accused has been convicted with the aid of Section 114 of IPC. The material question is whether the victim was minor at the time of alleged incident, which is committed on 25.3.1996. Now, as per the version of the complainant, Dajiyabhai Jaglabhai, PW-1, Exh.7, the victim-his daughter was of the age of 14 years at the time of incident. His deposition has been recorded on 22.7.1998 and as per his version, the incident has happened two years prior to the date of deposition. It means that the alleged offence might have been committed in the year 1996. On perusal of his evidence, it is clear that victim's sister, Leelaben has told him regarding kidnapping by Raju and Narsinh and Karansinh. According to his version, therefore, they went to find out the girl and, at that time, the accused started pelting stones and, therefore, they went back to their homes. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the witness has accepted in his cross-examination that he has not narrated this fact of pelting of stones by the accused. Thus, he has made improvement in his version. It also appears from his evidence that his daughter i.e. the victim had relationship with Rajaram and after the incident and after filing of complaint by him, all were together in the village and, at that time, Rajaram was also there. Thus, he has made improvement in his version. It also appears from his evidence that his daughter i.e. the victim had relationship with Rajaram and after the incident and after filing of complaint by him, all were together in the village and, at that time, Rajaram was also there. He has denied the suggestion that there was compromise to the effect that Rajaram will pay certain amount to him. He has also admitted the facts that at the time of incident his daughter and Rajaram went to Maharashtra. They lived there for three months and, thereafter, they returned back home. He has admitted that after the incident he went to Father and narrated the incident and Father asked him to give complaint and he tendered the complaint before police. According to him, after the said incident, Rajaram has been murdered. He has also stated that the victim was studying in 6th standard. He has stated that on the date of deposition, age of his daughter is 22 to 23 years. 10. Thus, on reading the evidence of the complainant himself, the age of the victim on the date of deposition i.e. 22.7.1998 was 22 to 23 years and if the offence, as alleged, is committed prior to two years from the date of deposition then the age of the victim would be 20 to 21 years on the date of incident. 11. The prosecutrix, PW-2 at Exh.9 has stated in her evidence that the incident has happened before three years and, at that time present accused, Rajaram and Narsinh came there and, at the edge of knife, Rajaram has taken her in the forest. She has also stated that Rajaram has committed rape on her, and at that time, Karansinh and Narsinh were on the top of the hill. She has also stated that after committing rape, Rajaram brought her to the place where Narsinh and Karansinh were sitting. She has also narrated that thereafter her family members were searching her and when they reached there, the accused-Rajaram has beaten her mother with stick and, thereafter, all the people went back. While narrating names of the places where the accused-Rajaram along with present accused took her, she has stated that during stay at various places Rajaram has committed rape on her thrice everyday. While narrating names of the places where the accused-Rajaram along with present accused took her, she has stated that during stay at various places Rajaram has committed rape on her thrice everyday. She has also stated that thereafter ultimately they reached at Village-Tavda and during entire travel, both the accused were along with Rajaram and she has stated that, thereafter, police came there and her statement was recorded. She has stated that Karansinh and Narsinh could not be found whereas Rajaram was arrested. She has also narrated the fact that she was examined in Civil Hospital, Bharuch and, thereafter, she was sent from Bharuch to Vadodara. 11.1 During her cross-examination, she has stated that she does not know Rajaram and her parents as well as village people also do not know Rajaram. She has denied the suggestion that she had relationship with Rajaram prior to the incident and she has not seen any of the accused prior to the incident and when Rajaram was committing rape, nobody else was present. She has admitted that they have travelled in the bus and her ticket was being purchased by Rajaram, whereas Rajaram was not purchasing tickets of others. She has also stated that Rajaram threatened her and at present Rajaram is no longer alive as he is murdered. She has also stated that for murder of Rajaram, her father and other two persons have been arrested. She has admitted the facts that after Rajaram and herself came back, there was compromise between both the families and it was decided to get money from Rajaram and it was agreed that if Rajaram pays the amount then marriage between the prosecutrix and Rajaram will be arranged. She has admitted that till Rajaram died, no amount was paid by him. She has also stated that prior to four years of deposition, she was studying in the school and she has studied upto 6th standard. She has also stated that her sister-Kaluben got married prior to one year and Kaluben is four to five years older to her, whereas other sisters and brothers are younger to her. 11.2 She has also admitted that prior to the incident, she was not knowing Rajaram and present accused Narsinh also. She has admitted that she gave names of these persons at the instance of her father. 11.2 She has also admitted that prior to the incident, she was not knowing Rajaram and present accused Narsinh also. She has admitted that she gave names of these persons at the instance of her father. She has admitted that all the persons had meeting at the residence of Mr. Chhotu Vasava. She has also stated that there is compromise arrived at between Rajaram and he had agreed to pay some amount, which is not paid by Rajaram and her father has filed complaint. 12. On perusal of the evidence of Lilaben Dajiyabhai, PW-3, Exh.19, it appears that she is sister of the victim. She has stated that she along with the victim and others went to sell the wood and when they reached near the hill, at that time, Rajaram has caught-hold of her sister and Narsinh and Karansinh were also there and all the three had knifes in their hands. She has also narrated that thereafter all of them took away victim to the hill and at that time, her mother did not do anything. She has stated that it has not happened that the accused had beaten her mother. 13. Witness Rajuben Dajiyabhai, PW-4, Exh.20, in her deposition stated that the victim is her daughter and she herself was at her house when the incident took place. While narrating the incident, she has stated that near the hill, Raju, Karansinh and Arjun had caught hold of her daughter and, at that time, all the three had knifes with them and they have threatened her daughter. She has stated that this fact has been told to her by her daughter Lila. Therefore, they went to search them. She has also stated that she does not know Rajaram, Karansinh and Arjun. She has further stated that the victim was found by police and age of the victim was approximately 14 years at the time of commission of offence. 13.1 During her cross-examination, she has stated that Rajaram has taken away her daughter and, for that incident, all have met at the residence of Chhotu Vasava and as Rajaram has not paid the agreed amount, complaint has been filed against him. 14. Saidi Narsing, Exh.22, PW-5, has not supported the basic version of the prosecution and he has shown his ignorance regarding the incident. 14. Saidi Narsing, Exh.22, PW-5, has not supported the basic version of the prosecution and he has shown his ignorance regarding the incident. Therefore, he has been declared hostile by prosecution and he has been cross-examined by the prosecution but in such cross-examination also, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 15. Similarly, PW-6, Bamniben Vijabhai, Exh.23 has also not supported the case of the prosecution. 16. Panch witness, Narapat Kalasiya, PW-7, Exh.32 has deposed that panchnama at Exh.33 and 34 were prepared in his presence and other panch and their signatures were obtained. However, in cross-examination, he has stated that contents of the panchnama were not read over to them and their signatures were taken on ready-made panchnama. 17. Another panch witness, Gorakhbhai Chiittarbhai, PW-8, Exh.35, has also not supported the prosecution case that panchnama at Exh.36 was prepared in his presence as well as in presence of Lallubhai Jitabhai. 18. Panch witness, Dorubhai Dharmabhai, PW-9, Exh.37 has also not supported the prosecution case that panchnama at Exh.38 was prepared and his signature was obtained thereon. He has stated that signatures of panchas were taken, however, contents thereof were not written in their presence. During his cross-examination, he has narrated the facts that Nila, who is the younger sister of prosecutrix, has informed them that three accused had kidnapped the victim and, therefore, the villagers were searching the victim and the accused and they found that the accused and victim were on the hill. He has also stated that as the victim girl and the accused had seen them, they left that place. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that Neela has came at about 1 p.m. and when they seen the girl and the accused, time was 4 O' clock. He has stated that they have seen both of them from 15 to 20 meters. He has stated that he was not knowing all the accused by name. 19. Panch witness, Aatarsing Gujariya, PW-10 has also not supported the basic version of the prosecution regarding preparation of panchnama in his presence. 20. Dr. He has stated that they have seen both of them from 15 to 20 meters. He has stated that he was not knowing all the accused by name. 19. Panch witness, Aatarsing Gujariya, PW-10 has also not supported the basic version of the prosecution regarding preparation of panchnama in his presence. 20. Dr. Vinaychand Lallubhai Patel, PW-11, Exh.47 has stated that he is serving as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Bharuch and on 3.7.1996, he was on emergency duty and at that time at about 2.30 in the afternoon, head constable, Kasturiben of Sagbara Police Station had brought the victim before him for examination. He also deposed that he has examined the victim and made necessary notes in the case papers. He has stated that he has asked the history from the patient. On such inquiry, she has stated that when she was at Selamba for selling wood, at that time, there were 16 girls along with her and when they were reached near the hill, Rajaram has caught-hold of her and there were two other persons along with him viz. Narsinh and Toraniyabhai. She was taken at the hills and Rajaram committed rape on her. She has also narrated the history that, thereafter, she was taken to Sonvad, Kukarda, Kaliyagam and Maljipura and everyday, the accused Rajaram committed rape on her. He has also stated that after examination, necessary certificate was issued and external injuries were round on genital organ and over the body and axially pubic hairs were present and breast was well-developed and there was no clotting over nipples. He has also stated that no stain is seen over the clothes put on at the time of examination and no semen was found on vagina. He has also stated that x-ray was taken for deciding the age of the victim. From the x-ray, as per his opinion, the age of the victim might be between 14 to 17 years. He has also stated that thereafter he has referred the patient to gynecologist for further examination. While referring to report of gynecologist, he has stated that fetus of 14 to 16 weeks was found in her uterus. From the x-ray, as per his opinion, the age of the victim might be between 14 to 17 years. He has also stated that thereafter he has referred the patient to gynecologist for further examination. While referring to report of gynecologist, he has stated that fetus of 14 to 16 weeks was found in her uterus. 20.1 He has also stated that he has also examined Rajaram on the same day, wherein Rajaram has narrated the history that with an intention to marry her, he took the victim on 25.3.1996 and with her consent, he has made intercourse. While referring to the examination of body of Rajaram, he has stated that age of Rajaram was 21 years. According to him, he cannot opine as to whether he has made intercourse with the lady victim or not. He has stated from examination of body of Rajaram that he was capable to have intercourse. 20.2 During his cross-examination, he has admitted that in certificate given by gynecologist, there is no signature. He has admitted that age of the victim might be two years below 14 or two years above 17. He has admitted that the fetus of 14 to 18 weeks was found from the body of the victim, which may be due to earlier intercourse. He has stated that he cannot opine as to the exact time of rupture of hymen. He has admitted that the victim has given history that before 15 days of examination, she was in menstrual period and he has admitted that considering that there is no possibility of she having any pregnancy. 21. Dr. Sunilkumar Patel, PW-12, Exh.53, has stated that on 4.2.1996, he was serving as Medical Officer in SSG Hospital, Vadodara and on that day at about 4.10 p.m. the victim was brought before him by head constable, Kasturiben. He has stated that the victim was referred from Bharuch Civil Hospital. He has stated that he has referred the patient to gynecologist and sonography was done by Dr. JT. Gohil. While narrating the appearance of the body of the patient, he has stated that there was fetus of 12 weeks in her uterus and there was sufficient liquid in the uterus for survival of the fetus. He has denied the suggestion that as there was sufficient liquid in the uterus, it could be presumed that the patient was of the age of majority. 22. He has denied the suggestion that as there was sufficient liquid in the uterus, it could be presumed that the patient was of the age of majority. 22. Prosecution witness-13, Chandreshkumar Shankarlal Pandya, Exh.60, in his evidence has produced the certificate of birth from school and has stated that he is serving as Principal since last three years and he was serving in the same school since last ten years. He has stated that they are admitting the student on the basis of the certificate received from earlier school. He has also stated that the victim was admitted in 5th standard and, at that time, certificate from earlier school was produced and, on that basis, the birth date of the victim was entered as 1.6.1981 in the General Register. He has also stated that the school leaving certificate was issued. He has produced the copy of general register as well as school leaving certificate of the victim showing that birth date of the victim was 1.6.1981. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that entry of birth date at Exh.62 is made from certificate received from earlier school and the previous school was of Kanapada and this fact has not been mentioned in the General Register. He has admitted that the birth certificate from village panchayat in respect of the victim has not been produced in the school and he has admitted that many students having birth date of 1st June are being admitted in the school. He has admitted that whenever the student is admitted in school, at that time, admission is given on the basis of birth certificate. 23. PW-14, Bharatbhai Tuliyabhai Vasava, Mantri in Devmogra Group Gram Panchayat, in his evidence at Exh.67 has stated that he has verified birth and death register and stated that there is no entry regarding birth of the victim in said register. 24. PW-15, Ashokbhai Hiralal Sonvane, Exh.70, has stated in his evidence that he was working as police inspector in Sagbara Police Station on 27.3.1996. He stated that the complaint of the complainant was recorded by him. He has further stated that he has recorded the statements of witnesses and also drawn panchnama of the place of offence. He has further stated that accused was arrested by him and panchnama of physical condition as well as of his clothes was done by him. He stated that the complaint of the complainant was recorded by him. He has further stated that he has recorded the statements of witnesses and also drawn panchnama of the place of offence. He has further stated that accused was arrested by him and panchnama of physical condition as well as of his clothes was done by him. He has also recovered knife from the accused and victim was sent for medical examination by him and her cloths were also recovered and panchnama was drawn. Present appellant was also arrested by him and knife was recovered from him and panchnama was drawn. Thereafter, further investigation was handed over to PSI Shri Rathod. This witness has stated that he has recorded the statement of Narsing, who has stated in his evidence that when the victim and other girls went to sell wood, deceased-Rajarama, Harsing, Narhari Lakadiya had tried to take away the victim and he intervened, however, the accused threatened him with knife and Rajuben was beaten by the accused person. He has also stated that similar statement was also made by one Bamniben. He has stated that he carried out panchnama of physical condition of the victim as well as accused-Rajaram. He has also carried out panchnama of the place of offence. 24.1 In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that during investigation it could not be revealed that the accused and the victim were having good relation. He also stated that before this complaint, the complainant has not given any complaint that his daughter is missing. He also stated that no ready-made complaint was brought by the complainant when he came to lodge the complaint. 25. PW-16, Mahendrasinh Narpatsinh Rathod, Exh.72 has stated in his evidence that in 1997 he was serving as PSI in Bharuch Division. He has stated that investigation of the present complaint was given to him from PSI, Shri Sonvane. He stated that since there was sufficient evidence, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. In his cross-examination, he has stated that it is not true that though there was insufficient evidence against present appellant, charge-sheet was filed against him. He has stated that he did not recorded statements of any of the witnesses. 26. Considering the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the main accused Rajaram has died during the pendency of the matter as he was murdered. He has stated that he did not recorded statements of any of the witnesses. 26. Considering the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the main accused Rajaram has died during the pendency of the matter as he was murdered. It also reveals from the evidence of the victim that compromise was arrived at between the parties and it was agreed that Rajaram would pay certain amount and, thereafter, he could not pay the said amount. It also reveals from the evidence of the complainant himself that the victim and the accused have stayed together at Maharashtra. 27. Now, the case of the prosecution is mainly dependent on minor age of the victim at the time of the incident. For assessment of age of the victim, it is clear from the evidence that father of the victim has stated that the incident had happened two years before recording of his evidence and his deposition has been recorded on 27.7.1998. As per FIR at Exh.8, the same has been lodged on 27.3.1996. In the FIR, the incident is alleged to have taken place on 25.3.1996. Now, as per the version of the complainant, on the date of deposition, age of the victim is 22-23 years. If this fact is believed, then, as the incident has happened two years prior to that day, at that time, the age of the victim would be 20-21 years. 28. Further the father of the victim has stated his age to be 45 years on the date of recording of his evidence. If this fact is considered then at the time of birth of the victim, the age of the father would be 23-24 years. Now, as per the version of the prosecutrix, they are seven sisters. Moreover, from the evidence of Rajuben, mother of the victim, she has seven daughters. As per the evidence of the prosecutrix, her elder sister-Kaluben is four to five years elder to her and she is married. It is also stated that other brothers and sisters are younger to her. If this evidence is read cumulatively, i.e. the age of father of the victim is 45 years, her elder sister has married and even as per the say of the complainant, the victim was 22-23 years of age at the time of deposition, then it cannot be said the victim was minor at the time of the alleged incident. If this evidence is read cumulatively, i.e. the age of father of the victim is 45 years, her elder sister has married and even as per the say of the complainant, the victim was 22-23 years of age at the time of deposition, then it cannot be said the victim was minor at the time of the alleged incident. In her deposition, Rajuben, mother of the victim, has stated her age to be 43 years on the date of deposition. Therefore, there was difference of two years between the age of husband and wife. 29. Even as per the evidence of the doctor, at the time of commission of offence, the age of the victim might be 14 to 17 with difference of two years on both sides. If all these things are considered then the victim at the time of alleged incident would not be minor. Of course, the prosecution has heavily relied on the school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix for contending that at the time of incident, the victim was minor. However, it is clear from evidence that school certificate produced on record is based on the certificate issued by earlier school. From the evidence of PW-13, Bharatbhai Tuiliyabhai Vasava, Mantri in Devmogra Group Gram Panchayat, it is clear that he has verified birth and death register and stated that there is no entry regarding birth of the victim in said register. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to produce on record any cogent or convincing evidence regarding the date of birth of the victim and secondary evidence is produced. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the version of the prosecutrix regarding her age to be below 18 years is doubtful and the same cannot be believed to convict the accused. 30. On re-appreciating the oral evidence on record, it appears that evidence of the witnesses is not trustworthy and reliable. They have made improvements in their evidence before the Court. As such, if we consider the factum of age of the victim as discussed herein above, there is no case against present accused and, therefore, the reasoning of learned trial Court in convicting the accused is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of above, this Court finds that learned trial Court has committed serious error of law in convicting present appellant with the aid of Section 114 of IPC. 31. In view of above, this Court finds that learned trial Court has committed serious error of law in convicting present appellant with the aid of Section 114 of IPC. 31. For the foregoing reasons, present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 8.8.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 59 of 1997, convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside so far as present appellant is concerned. The appellant-accused is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.