JUDGMENT : SANJAY S. AGRAWAL, J. 1. Since both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 02/2019, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In Rostam @ Bablu vs. State of Chhattisgarh, CRA No. 52/2020 the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine amount of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment to fine further R.I. for 3 months U/s 366 A of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine amount of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 months U/s 376(2)(n) of IPC Life imprisonment and fine amount of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 6 months. All sentences directed to run concurrently. Mesraj @ Misraj Ansari and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh, CRA No. 127/2020 the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence U/s 363/34 of IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine amount of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment to fine further R.I. for 3 months U/s 366 A of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine amount of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 months 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11.03.2019 at 12:50 hours, a report was lodged by the prosecutrix's father, namely, Rehamtulla to the effect that his daughter, who is minor aged about 16 years, has gone somewhere else on 05.03.2019 at about 8:00 PM without intimating to anyone and did not return and, it was alleged that he has apprehension that the appellant-Rostam has abducted his daughter while alluring her. Based upon the said information, an FIR was registered by the Police Station Pratappur, District-Surajpur against him for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. During investigation, it was informed by the father of the prosecutrix on 10.05.2019 that his daughter has returned home on 08.05.2019 and intimating him that the appellant-Rostam has taken her to Jabalpur while alluring her and accordingly, Recovery Panchnama (Ex.P-8) was prepared on 10.05.2019 in presence of the witnesses. During investigation, it was informed by the father of the prosecutrix on 10.05.2019 that his daughter has returned home on 08.05.2019 and intimating him that the appellant-Rostam has taken her to Jabalpur while alluring her and accordingly, Recovery Panchnama (Ex.P-8) was prepared on 10.05.2019 in presence of the witnesses. After her recovery as such, she was sent for medical examination and her medical report (Ex.P-7) was submitted by Dr. Suchita Nirmala Kindo (PW-3) while opining that she is habitual to have sexual intercourse. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur on 27.05.2019 vide Ex.P-12. In order to ascertain her age, the Investigation Officer has seized the Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P-3C) from the Headmaster of the concerned school. The appellants were arrested and the spot map was prepared by concerned Patwari vide Ex.P-4 and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the appellants on 10.07.2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n), 506, 368 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, while showing some of the accused persons, namely, Smt. Shafeena, Alijan, Smt. Kulsum as absconding. 4. The appellants have denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses, while none was examined by the appellants in rebuttal. 6. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein-above. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these appeals. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, while inviting attention to the statements of the prosecutrix and her parents, submits that the prosecutrix was major on the date of alleged incident, occurred on 05.03.2019, as according to the Adhaar Card, it was admitted by the prosecutrix that her date of birth is 01.01.2001 which has also been admitted by her father, yet the trial Court without taking note of these material piece of evidence has committed a serious illegality in holding that she was minor on the fateful day. It is contended further that although her date of birth is shown to be recorded as 01.07.2002 in Dakhil Kharij Register, but since the alleged entry was made merely on presumption, therefore, the Court below ought not to have placed its reliance upon it as the conviction of the appellants cannot be based upon in an approximate date made in the said register, particularly, when, it has not been supported by any cogent and reliable evidence. The findings of the Court below convicting the appellants without considering the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution in its proper manner is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the Court below. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 11. According to the prosecutrix (PW-9), she was invited by her friend Afsana Bano on the date of incident, i.e. 05.03.2019 at about 8:00 PM on dinner and after having meals, when she came out from her house for wandering, at that particular time, the appellants Emam Hussain, Meraj Ansari, Kulsum and Rostam @ Bablu, who were standing nearby the road, came and forcefully took her in their vehicle “Bolero” and took her to Ambikapur, Railway Station, where they dropped her along with the appellant-Rostam. It was stated further that said Rostam took her to Jabalpur and from where he took her to village Khapa at his friend's house and stayed there with her for one and a half month and during this period, he got married with her on 12.03.2019 in Mandla in presence of the witnesses and, thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her. She deposed further that he took her to his sister's house at Village Sehra (Satbarva) and kept her there for eight days and during this period, he committed sexual intercourse with her and, thereafter, he took her to the house of one Zahid Vakeel at Manpur (Surajpur) where also he committed the same thing with her. In her cross-examination, it was stated by her that she lives with him as a husband and wife after the solemnization of her marriage. In her cross-examination, it was stated by her that she lives with him as a husband and wife after the solemnization of her marriage. It was stated further that when she was staying with the appellant-Rostam at Narayanganj (Khapa), she came to know that her father has lodged a report at Police Station Pratappur, therefore, she went along with him in his sister's house at Village Sehra (Satbarva) where they stayed for eight days. It was stated further that her father had called her through phone asking for their return with the assurance to perform her marriage with the consent, but has refused to do so. It was stated further that she wants to live with him (Rostam) as his wife. It was deposed further in her cross-examination that according to the Adhaar Card, her date of birth is 01.01.2001. 12. Rehmatullah (PW-11), who is the father of the prosecutrix, has admitted in his evidence that the birth certificate of his daughter was not made and that by seeing the original Adhaar Card of his daughter, it was stated that her date of birth has been registered therein as 01.01.2001. Saikhan (PW-10), who is the mother of the prosecutrix, has, however, unable to state the date of birth of her daughter. 13. Nandlal Singh (PW-1) is the Headmaster of the Primary School, Barbaspur and according to him, the prosecutrix was given her admission in 4th Standard without obtaining her transfer certificate. It was deposed further that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was entered in the said Dakhil Kharij Register (School Register) (Ex.P-1) on presumption as 01.07.2002 and based upon which, he issued the certificate (Ex.P-2). 14. Dr. Suchita Nirmala Kindo (PW-3), who examined the prosecutrix has, however, unable to state about the age of the prosecutrix. 15. From perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it, thus, appears that the prosecutrix has left the house on 05.03.2019 at about 8:00 PM and the report of her abduction was lodged by her father Rehmatullah (PW-1) only on 11.03.2019 i.e. after six days of her missing, against the appellant-Rostam. 15. From perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it, thus, appears that the prosecutrix has left the house on 05.03.2019 at about 8:00 PM and the report of her abduction was lodged by her father Rehmatullah (PW-1) only on 11.03.2019 i.e. after six days of her missing, against the appellant-Rostam. It appears further from the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-9) that she was remained with him (Rostam) for a considerable period of one and a half month in his friend's house at Village Khapa and her marriage was solemnized with him (Rostam) at Mandla on 12.03.2019 in presence of the witnesses and she was living with him as his wife. It appears further that when she was staying at Village Khapa, she heard that her father had lodged the report before the concerned Police Station, therefore, she went to his sister's house with him at Village Sehra (Satbarva), where both stayed for eight days as husband and wife. 16. Pertinently to be noted here that the prosecutrix had visited different places, as found herein above, with the appellant-Rostam, but has never raised any objection or complaint and was accompanied him in normal manner. The conduct of her would, thus, show that she was, neither abducted nor was taken forcefully and, instead, she accompanied with the appellant-Rostam on her own will and we, therefore, do not find that the appellant-Rostam has committed sexual intercourse without her consent. In view of such circumstances, it is, thus, evident that she was living with the appellant-Rostam voluntarily with her own wish, and therefore, it cannot be said that she was abducted by the appellants, as alleged by the prosecution. 17. In view of the above, the focal point of decision would be the age of the prosecutrix in order to determine as to whether she was a major as to give her consent on the date of the occurrence of the alleged incident, which occurred on 05.03.2019. 18. According to the prosecutrix (PW-9), it was categorically admitted in her cross-examination that according to Adhaar Card, her date of birth is 01.01.2001 and the said fact has been admitted by her father also and the mother was, however, not aware with regard to the date of her birth. 18. According to the prosecutrix (PW-9), it was categorically admitted in her cross-examination that according to Adhaar Card, her date of birth is 01.01.2001 and the said fact has been admitted by her father also and the mother was, however, not aware with regard to the date of her birth. There is, thus, no cogent and reliable evidence has been placed on record by the prosecution in order to show that the prosecutrix was minor on the fateful day and if the date of her birth is taken into consideration as stated by her based upon the Adhar Card, i.e. 01.01.2001, then in the said condition, she would be major on the date, i.e. 05.03.2019, when the alleged incident had taken place. 19. Be that as it may, the prosecution in order to establish the minority of the prosecutrix has placed his reliance upon the “Dakhil Kharij Register” (Ex.P-3C) which was seized from the Head Master of the concerned school vide Ex.P-1 and, a bare perusal of it would show that her date of birth has been shown to be recorded at serial number 619 as 01.07.2002 without any basis or record and in fact, it has been made merely on presumption. Furthermore, it appears from its perusal that the prosecutrix was given admission in 4th Standard even without obtaining her transfer certificate and no reason whatsoever has been assigned as to how the admission was given to her as such. That apart, even the doctor (PW-3), who examined the prosecutrix, was unable to state her age. 20. At this juncture, it is to be seen the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit, 1988 (Supp.) SCC 604, wherein, it has been observed that the date of birth in the scholar's register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The relevant observation made at Para 14 reads as under: “14..........The date of birth mentioned in the scholars' register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The relevant observation made at Para 14 reads as under: “14..........The date of birth mentioned in the scholars' register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar's register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. If the entry in the scholar's register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value.....” 21. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matter, vis-a-vis, the evidence led by the prosecution, the entries made in the alleged “Dakhil Kharij Register” (Ex.P-3C) pertaining to the date of birth of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon and, therefore, the conviction of the appellants cannot be based upon an approximate date which is not found to be supported by any cogent and reliable evidence. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and the appeals preferred by them deserve to be allowed. 22. The appeals are, thus, allowed and the appellants are acquitted. They are on bail. Their bail bonds shall remain effective for a period of 6 months in view of the provisions prescribed under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.