JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The learned Special Court Una, District Una, H.P., drew charge(s) against accused Ajesh for offences punishable under Section 363, and, under Section 366-A, of, the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC, and, under Section 354 of the IPC & under Section 8 of the POCSO Act besides the learned Special Court concerned, drew charges against accused Ajay Kumar, for, his committing offences punishable under Section 363, and, under Section 366-A read with Section 34 of the IPC, and, accused Om Pal became charged for his committing an offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC. However, the learned Special Court concerned, proceeded to make an order of acquittal, vis-a-vis, all the afore drawn charges, and, qua all the accused/respondents herein. The State of Himachal Pradesh becomes aggrieved therefrom, and, hence through the extant Cr.MP(M), has sought, the, leave of this Court, for appealing against the afore order, of, acquittal, as, made by the learned Special Court concerned, upon, Sessions trial No. 20/2018. 2. The genesis of the prosecution case, is, embodied in Ex.PW5/A, exhibit whereof embodies, a, statement of the prosecutrix/victim, recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., (i) wherein, she narrates, qua on 27.06.2017 at about 8.00 p.m., upon, her parents being unavailable at home, and, hers along with younger brother sitting in her house, and, watching TV hence thereat accused making his arrival, and, requesting her to accompany him, and, he, is narrated by her, to, make an offer to marry him, and, also unless, the offer is not accepted, his threatening to commit suicide. She further narrates that without the consent of her parents, she proceeded to join the company of the accused, and, both on the motorcycle of the accused proceeded to Nangal bus-stand, and, wherefrom, they proceeded to Anandpur Sahib, and, therefrom to Ambala in a train, and, thereonwards they both proceeded to Delhi. She proceeds to narrate therein that at the abode of accused's aunt, the accused kissed her twice, or, thrice, and, also touched her breast. On the basis of afore statement, of, the prosecutrix/victim, and, as become embodied in Ex.PW3/A, FIR Ex.PW13/A became registered at Police Station, Sadar Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. 3. The MLC of the prosecutrix is embodied, in, Ex.PW3/A, wherein echoings are borne, vis-a-vis, no external injury marks occurring on the body of the victim. On the basis of afore statement, of, the prosecutrix/victim, and, as become embodied in Ex.PW3/A, FIR Ex.PW13/A became registered at Police Station, Sadar Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. 3. The MLC of the prosecutrix is embodied, in, Ex.PW3/A, wherein echoings are borne, vis-a-vis, no external injury marks occurring on the body of the victim. However, there occurs a reference to the opinion of the Radiologist working, at, Regional Hospital, Una, wherein he makes an echoing, vis-a-vis, the radiological age of the victim ranging between 18 to 20 years, and, also therein occurs an echoing, vis-a-vis, the ossification age of the victim, as made by the Dental Surgeon, being above 16 years. The school leaving certificate, as, procured by the Investigation Officer, and, embodied in Ex.PW11/A, reflects, vis-a-vis, the victim/prosecutrix being a minor, in contemporaneity, with the afore offence taking place, at the site of occurrence. During the course of the investigations, the investigating Officer had taken the victim, before the learned Magistrate concerned, and, the latter had recorded her statement, under, Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein echoing(s), in completest consonance, with the version set forth, by the prosecutrix, and, as embodied in Ex.PW5/A, become vividly voiced. The afore statement is signatured by the prosecutrix/victim, and, as also a certificate qua the prosecutrix volitionally making the afore statement, is, carried thereon, and, is signatured by the learned Magistrate concerned. 4. The imperative factum, which enjoins meteing of a firm adjudication, is, comprised, vis-a-vis, the authenticity(ies), of, the revelations borne, in, the School Leaving Certificate, embodied in Ex.PW11/A, wherein echoings occur, qua the prosecutrix/victim being a minor, in, contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the occurrence taking place. Even though, from the afore, the prosecution may prima facie succeed, in, establishing the charges drawn against the accused, under, Section 363, and, under, Section 366- A of the IPC read with Section 34, of, the IPC. However, for the reasons, assigned hereinafter, the afore made revelations, in, the school leaving certificate, as, embodied in Ex.PW11/A, neither comprise(s) the best documentary evidence, for, the relevant purpose, nor obviously any probative sanctity can come to be meted thereon, (i) as, the settled proposition of law, rests the trite expostulation, vis-a-vis, the best documentary evidence, for making firm ascertainments, vis-a-vis, the afore facet, is, rather the birth certificate of the prosecutrix, and, besides it obviously becoming the most credible, and, reliable piece of evidence, for, the afore purpose. However, the birth certificate of the prosecutrix/victim, did not come to be collected by the Investigating Officer nor also it came to be exhibited before the trial Court concerned. 5. Be that as it may, the defence was yet cast with an obligation to mete suggestion(s), to, PW-11, who tendered Ex.PW11/A, before the learned trial Court concerned, and, the afore suggestions were enjoined to carry voicings, vis-a-vis, in contemporaneity with Ex.PW11/A, becoming issued, all the compatible therewith records, (I) especially the apposite affidavit, vis-a-vis, the age, of, the prosecutrix, hence, of the father-cum-natural, guardian of the prosecutrix, as, tendered alongwith the admission form, of, the prosecutrix, hence, existing on records of the school concerned, and, all the relevant echoings borne therein, bearing compatibility, with, the revelations of date of birth, of, the prosecution, as, become borne in Ex.PW11/A. Even though, the afore suggestions remained unmeted to PW-11, yet the afore omission, does not render Ex.PW11/A to carry any evidentiary tenacity, as, the prosecution has examined the author of Ex.PW11/A, (ii) and, importantly also when dehors the afore omission, it was rather incumbent, upon, the prosecution to fully discharge the burden of proving, qua the afore apposite reflections borne in Ex.PW11/A, hence, becoming prepared in consonance with the afore affidavit, as, became tendered before the school authorities concerned, by the father-cum-natural guardian, of, the prosecutrix. However, the afore imperative burden, cast upon, the prosecution remained completely undischarged, rather during the course of the learned defence counsel conducting, cross-examination, upon, PW-2, the father-cum-natural guardian of the prosecutrix, he became confronted, with, Ex.Dx, and, PW-2, upon, being faced with Ex. Dx, rather acquiesced to, it carrying his signatures. Consequently, when Ex. Dx unveils, vis-a-vis, the age of the prosecutrix, becoming incorrectly recorded in the school records, and, also echoes, vis-a-vis, the date of birth of the prosecutrix, being 15.01.2002, (iii) thereupon, all the entries borne in Ex.PW11/A become eroded, vis-a-vis, their efficacy, and, also any evidence contra therewith begets nullification. The afore inference obviously renders the charges drawn against the accused, for, commission of offences punishable under Section 363, and, under Section 366-A, of, the IPC read with Section 34 IPC, to fully collapse. 6. The afore inference obviously renders the charges drawn against the accused, for, commission of offences punishable under Section 363, and, under Section 366-A, of, the IPC read with Section 34 IPC, to fully collapse. 6. Since, the statutorily contemplated age, of, consent, for, hence, facilitating the prosecutrix, to mete, her valid consent, for the ascribed penal misdemeanor, vis-a-vis, the accused, rather is 18 years, thereupon, the afore drawn conclusion, vis-a-vis, the charges drawn against, the, accused, for, commission, of, offences punishable under Section 363, and, under Section 366-A read with Section 34 IPC, hence collapsing, yet may not survive, vis-a-vis, the charges drawn under Section 354 of the IPC, and, under Section 8, of, the POCSO Act. However, even the afore drawn charges against the accused, would yet stagger, as, the defence projected by the accused, through, his counsel before the learned trial Court, is, not, of, meteings, of, any consent, vis-a-vis, the afore purported penal misdemeanor, by the victim, qua the accused, rather is of complete denial, (a) and, the afore defence has become corroborated by PW-14, the victim/prosecutrix, inasmuch, as she has resiled from her previous statement recorded in writing. Even though, upon, the learned Public Prosecutor's request, she was permitted to be declared hostile, and, also the learned Public Prosecutor was permitted by the learned trial Court, to conduct cross-examination, upon, her. Nonetheless, during the course of her cross-examination, she has completely denied qua hers, in the respectively recorded previous statements, hence attributing any penal misdemeanor to the accused, inasmuch, as, his kissing her, and, also pressing her breast. The afore complete apposite denial, as, made by the victim/prosecutrix, brings forth the trite factum, qua hers obviously contradicting her previous statements recorded in writing, thereupon, an invincible conclusion is drawable, vis-a-vis, no valid proof of charges, as, drawn against the accused, for his committing an offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, hence, becoming adduced by the prosecution. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, had also, confronted the prosecutrix, with her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and, as embodied in Ex.PW14/A. However, upon, the prosecutrix becoming confronted therewith, though, she admitted her signatures becoming borne thereon, yet she denied, vis-a-vis, hers not making the afore statement, hence, volitionally before the learned Magistrate concerned. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, had also, confronted the prosecutrix, with her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and, as embodied in Ex.PW14/A. However, upon, the prosecutrix becoming confronted therewith, though, she admitted her signatures becoming borne thereon, yet she denied, vis-a-vis, hers not making the afore statement, hence, volitionally before the learned Magistrate concerned. Ex.PW14/A is a statement recorded in writing, under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concerned, and, it was permissible for the learned Public Prosecutor to conduct cross-examination upon her, qua it becoming volitionally recorded by the prosecutrix hence before the learned Magistrate concerned, and, also qua it not containing any inspired or tutored version. Moreover, even though, the prosecution, as, afore stated hence attempted to mete a suggestion to her, vis-a-vis, Ex.PW14/A carrying her signatures. Nonetheless, despite hers admitting, her signatures thereon, yet she denied qua hers making it volitionally, before the learned Magistrate concerned, thereupon, with the afore statement carrying a signatured certificate, made by the learned Magistrate concerned, vis-a-vis, it becoming volitionally made by her, before the Magistrate concerned, (a) hence, thereupon, it was inapt for the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, to, thereafter, omit, through an application cast under Section 311, Cr.P.C., hence seek affirmative permission of the learned trial Court, for his thereafter ensuring, the, stepping into the witness box, of, the learned Magistrate concerned, (b) and, his further ensuring from him, elicitation, of, a firm denial hence in rebuttal, to the afore disclosures, of, the victim, through his proving the authenticity, of, the afore certificate, as, embodied in Ex.PW14/A, hence, carrying thereabove, the, signatured statement of the prosecutrix, (c) and, rather whereupon, the testification, in, court of the prosecutrix, as, contained in her cross-examination, as, hence made upon her, by the learned Public Prosecutor, wherein, she denied qua the contents, borne, in, Ex.PW14/A being volitionally made by her, reiteratedly would become validly attempted to become scuttled or belied. Contrarily, the afore omission constrains, this Court to conclude, that, the incriminatory statement made, by the prosecutrix/victim against the accused, and, as embodied in Ex.PW14/A, rather becomes, as, testified by her in her cross-examination, hence, being in-volitionally recorded, and, the apt corollary thereof, is, qua the prosecutrix, while testifying in Court, and, therein hers contradicting the contents of Ex.PW14/A, and, of Ex.PW5/A, obviously bolstering an inference qua the afore testification, as, made by her in court being both, meritworthy, and, creditworthy. 8. The upshot of the afore discussion, is, that the order of acquittal, as, recorded by the learned trial Court, does not warrant any interference from this Court. The further consequence thereof, is, that the leave as prayed for, is, declined to the State. Consequently, the extant Cr.MP(M), is, dismissed. All other pending applications also stand disposed of.