JUDGMENT : 2. By way of instant appeal, appellant has assailed the judgment of acquittal dated 28.11.2020 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 30-S/7 of 2020/2016 3. Respondent herein was charged and prosecuted for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’). 4. The prosecution of respondent was result of investigation carried out in pursuance to registration of FIR No.03 of 2016 dated 8.1.2016 at Police Station, Arki, District Solan, H.P. The above noted FIR was registered on the complaint of Ganga Ram S/o Sh. Pahal Singh. It was alleged by him that respondent herein used to meet his daughter (victim). Despite advice, respondent used to roam in or around his house. In the evening of 07.01.2016, at around 6.00 P.M. respondent had enticed the victim and had kidnapped her with intention to marry her. 5. During investigation, the victim was recovered on 17.01.2016 from the company of the respondent from village Haripur, Tehsil Chakrata, Vikasnagar, Dehradun. The victim denied having been enticed by respondent. The victim disclosed that she was maintaining relation with respondent voluntarily and was pregnant. She had accompanied respondent of her own free will. 6. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted recommending trial of respondent. Learned trial Court charged respondent for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 7. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court has recorded the finding of acquittal vide impugned judgment. 8. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the evidence has not been correctly appreciated by the learned trial Court. It has been contended that the findings of the learned trial Court to the effect that victim was major at the time of alleged offence is against the material proved on record. According to appellant, the statement of PW-2, father of victim has not been considered in right perspective. Documents Ex.PW-8/B and Ex.PW-8/C have wrongly been discarded. The precedence given to document Ext.- DX vis-à-vis documents Ex. PW-8/B and Ex.PW-8/C, is against the settled principles of law. According to appellant, the statement of PW-2, father of victim has not been considered in right perspective. Documents Ex.PW-8/B and Ex.PW-8/C have wrongly been discarded. The precedence given to document Ext.- DX vis-à-vis documents Ex. PW-8/B and Ex.PW-8/C, is against the settled principles of law. It has also been submitted that the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW-19/F, has not been appreciated correctly. 9. We have heard Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant and Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Avinash Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent and have also gone through the records. 10. It is not disputed by either side that the respondent has married the victim and have two children from the wedlock. They are living happy married life. The factum of marriage having been solemnized between respondent and victim cannot be a legal ground to absolve the respondent from the criminal liability, if the alleged offence is otherwise proved against him. Thus, the material available on record needs independent assessment. 11. The controversy revolves around the prime issue regarding the age of victim at the time of alleged offences. The victim had accompanied the respondent on 17.01.2016. According to her version, she had conceived as a result of physical relation developed between her and the respondent on 2/3.11.2015. Thus, the fate of the case hinges upon the age of the victim on 2/3.11.2015 and thereafter on 07.01.2016. 12. The prosecution has examined the father of victim Sh. Ganga Ram as PW-2, who in his examination-in-chief narrated the age of victim to be 16 years in the year 2016. However, in cross-examination, he admitted to have executed an affidavit Ext.-DX before the Executive Magistrate, Arki regarding the date of birth of his daughter. He also admitted the fact that his daughter had solemnized marriage with respondent on 03.01.2016. He denied the suggestion that his daughter at the time of marriage was major. 13. Perusal of document Ext.-DX, reveals that the same was executed by PW-2 on 07.11.2015 before the Executive Magistrate, Arki, District Solan and had solemnly affirmed as under: “1. That the date of birth of my daughter Meena is 10.5.1997 which is true and correct and the date of birth which was written in school certificate i.e. 10.5.1999 is wrong, which was written at that time due to mistake.” 14. That the date of birth of my daughter Meena is 10.5.1997 which is true and correct and the date of birth which was written in school certificate i.e. 10.5.1999 is wrong, which was written at that time due to mistake.” 14. The date of execution of this document has not been challenged by the prosecution. Thus, it cannot be said that this document was created or manufactured after registration of the case to create evidence. 15. The prosecution has also examined PW-8 Sh. Shanta Kumar to prove the extract of admission and withdrawal register of Government Senior Secondary School, Baghal, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, Ex.PW-8/C and a copy of an affidavit executed by PW-2 Ganga Ram as Ex. PW-8/B. 16. Contents of affidavit Ex.PW-8/B disclose that the date of birth of victim mentioned therein is 10.5.1999. However, the document placed on record is not the original and does not even reveal the date of its execution or details of its attestation. Strangely, the execution of document Ex.PW-8/B has not been proved through its purported author i.e. PW-2. For the reasons best known to prosecution, the document Ex.PW-8/B was not shown to the witness, who is alleged to have executed the same. Evidently, the entries in school register Ex.PW-8/C, are based upon the contents of this affidavit, therefore, such entry in respect of the date of birth of victim is not beyond shadow of doubt. 17. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the standard of proof required in criminal trials is beyond all reasonable doubts. The prosecution, in light of above discussion, has failed to discharge the burden in accordance with law. The fact that the victim was minor on the date of alleged offence was required to be proved by the prosecution by cogent and convincing evidence, but the evidence on record is found to be deficient in more than one way. The fact remains that execution of affidavit Ext.-DX remained un-rebutted. Prosecution omitted to re-examine the witness PW-2 on this material aspect. In light of the admission of PW-2 as to execution of document Ex. DX, his oral version regarding minority of victim at the time of alleged offence, looses significance. 18. The victim appeared as PW-1 and did not support the prosecution case. In cross-examination, she specifically denied her date of birth to be 11.05.1999. In light of the admission of PW-2 as to execution of document Ex. DX, his oral version regarding minority of victim at the time of alleged offence, looses significance. 18. The victim appeared as PW-1 and did not support the prosecution case. In cross-examination, she specifically denied her date of birth to be 11.05.1999. In her further cross-examination by the defence counsel, she categorically admitted her date of birth to be 10.05.1997. 19. PW-16 Shri Bhupinder Gupta was examined as a witness to prove the records of Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhumti, Tehsil Arki, District Solan. This witness deposed that on the request of police, he had issued certificate Ex. PW-16/B and had also handed over a copy of School Leaving Certificate Ex.PW-16/C to the police during investigation. Though, these documents also mention the date of birth of victim as 10.05.1999, but again there is nothing on record to authenticate these entries. It is not clear as to on what basis the date of birth of the victim was recorded as 10.05.1999. 20. Ex.PW-16/C is the school leaving certificate, which shows that the victim was admitted in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhumti, Tehsil Arki, District Solan on 15.11.2011 and remained there till 27.02.2012. The entry in Ex. PW-8/C against the name of victim at serial No. 567 of the register dates back to 11.03.2011. It appears that after leaving Govt. Senior Secondary School, Baghal, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, the victim was admitted in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhumti, Tehsil Arki, District Solan. Hence, the entry of 10.05.1999 as date of birth of victim in records of both the schools remained the same. The school at Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhumti, Tehsil Arki must have admitted the victim on the basis of record of her previous schooling. When the entry in document Ex. PW-8/C with respect to the date of birth of victim has been held to be doubtful, the entry in documents Ex.PW-16/B and Ex.PW-16/C cannot have better credence. 21. The ossification test does not appear to have been conducted on victim to ascertain her age. 22. On the basis of the evidence on record, it is not established and proved that the victim was a minor at the time of alleged offence. To the contrary, the evidence is that she was born on 10.05.1997 and thus had attained majority on 10.05.2015. 22. On the basis of the evidence on record, it is not established and proved that the victim was a minor at the time of alleged offence. To the contrary, the evidence is that she was born on 10.05.1997 and thus had attained majority on 10.05.2015. That being so the findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be faulted. Once the victim was not proved to be a minor, no offence could be said to have been committed by respondent for which he was charged. The victim has categorically stated that she had accompanied respondent of her own will more than once and had maintained relations with him voluntarily. None of the incidences when victim is alleged to have accompanied respondent relate to the period of her minority. The factum that the victim and respondent are happily married is a relevant fact only to evaluate the veracity of version given by the victim. 23. In light of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.