JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. 1. The State of Jammu & Kashmir (now UT of J&K) is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.10.2014 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua ["the trial Court"] in file No.08/Sessions titled State v. Rinku @ Gopal Dutt, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 376 RPC. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case set up in the Final Report is that the Police Station, Malhar Tehsil Billawar registered FIR No.30/2007 for offence under Section 376 RPC against the respondent on the basis of directions for investigation issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C on a complaint made by the maternal-grandfather of the prosecutrix, namely, PW-Masoo. The complainant, in his complaint, has alleged that the prosecutirx, his maternal grand daughter, about 10 years old, is living with him along with her mother, PW-Indro Devi, who has been divorced by her husband-Dewan Chand. It is further alleged that the respondent, by applying deceitful means, induced and lured the prosecutrix to marry with him. The prosecutrix fell prey to such inducement without understanding her good or bad and solemnized marriage with the respondent in the month of June, 2007. He alleges that the marriage was without the consent and knowledge and in the absence of her mother as also the complainant. After solemnizing marriage, respondent took the prosecutrix to fields belonging to the complainant twice in the month of July and August and had sexual intercourse with her against her consent. This happened within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Malhar Tehsil Billawar. The prosecutrix, who was in pain and suffering, hesitantly narrated the incident to her mother on 19.08.2007, who in turn reported the matter to her mother i.e. wife of the complainant. He, thus, complained that the respondent has committed rape upon the prosecutrix and, therefore, deserves to be dealt with and punished accordingly. 3. Upon registration of FIR pursuant to the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, investigation was taken up. The Investigating Officer, on conclusion of the investigation, came to the conclusion that there was evidence to, prima facie, prove that the marriage between the prosecutrix and the respondent had taken place and that the respondent had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent. The prosecution, accordingly, laid the charge-sheet before the trial Court. 4. The Investigating Officer, on conclusion of the investigation, came to the conclusion that there was evidence to, prima facie, prove that the marriage between the prosecutrix and the respondent had taken place and that the respondent had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent. The prosecution, accordingly, laid the charge-sheet before the trial Court. 4. The trial Court after hearing prosecution and the defence framed charge under Section 376 RPC against the respondent on 02.09.2008. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to sustain the charge against the respondent, the prosecution produced and examined PW-Masoo, PW-Rita Devi, PW-Indro Devi, PW-Kushalya Devi, PW-Tilak Raj, PW-Narayan Dutt, PW-Chuni Lal, PW-Chaman Lal, PW-Dr. Garima Bajpai, PW-Vijay Singh Manhas, PW-Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed and PW-Mohd. Akhtar Lone. 6. The incriminating evidence was put to the respondent and his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The respondent denied the allegation and the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence by making general denial. He, however, claimed that prosecutrix was his legally wedded wife and his marriage with her took place according to Hindu rites on 27.06.2007. He further claims that the marriage was solemnized in the presence of mother, maternal-grandmother, maternal-grandfather of the prosecutrix and others. He claims that the age of the prosocutrix at the time of marriage was 16 years. The respondent, however, chose not to lead any evidence in defence. 7. The trial Court, after considering the rival contentions and having gone through the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that the prosecutrix was minor on the day of alleged occurrence and that there were serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses sufficient enough to belie the prosecution case. The trial Court vide its judgment of acquittal, impugned in this appeal, dismissed the charge and acquitted the respondent. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered view that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is well reasoned and falls within four corners of law and, therefore, does not call for interference by this Court in appeal. Place of Occurrence 9. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution suffers from serious contradictions which put the entire case of the prosecution in the realm of doubt and suspicion. Place of Occurrence 9. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution suffers from serious contradictions which put the entire case of the prosecution in the realm of doubt and suspicion. So far as place of occurrence is concerned, the complainant in his complaint clearly states that the prosecutrix was raped twice in the month of July and August, 2007 respectively in the fields belonging to the complainant-Masoo. While recording his statement before the Court he has proved the contents of the application and admitted them to be true and correct. He reiterates in his deposition before the trial Court that it was prosecutrix who herself told him that the respondent misbehaved with her in the fields and not in the house. 10. The statement of the prosecutrix made in the trial Court reveals that the occurrence took place on two dates i.e. 18th and 19th August, 2007, when the respondent came to her house and raped her taking the benefit of absence of her mother, who had gone to "udhar" (Dhok). She is, therefore, categoric that she was raped twice in the house of her maternal-grandfather, the complainant. 11. The other star prosecution witnesses PW-Indro Devi and PW-Kushalya Devi have not indicated the place of occurrence. There is no other independent witness examined by the prosecution with respect to the actual place of occurrence. We are, thus, left with the version of the prosecutrix and the complainant. Both are contradictory and, therefore, put the case of the prosecution under scanner. Age of the Prosecutrix 12. There are contradictory versions about the exact age of the prosecutrix at the time of commission of alleged offence of rape by the respondent. PW-Masoo in his complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua has indicated the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 1st March, 1997 that means the prosecutrix was 10 years old in the year 2007, when the occurrence is alleged to have happened. PW-Masoo, the complainant, in his testimony before the trial Court states that his daughter, PW-Indro Devi was married to one Dewan Chand about 18-20 years back and said Dewan Chand left his daughter about 15-16 years back and at that point of time the prosecutrix being eldest of the three siblings was 6-8 years old. He, however, states that the age of the prosecutrix at the time of recording of the statement is 13 years. He, however, states that the age of the prosecutrix at the time of recording of the statement is 13 years. Going by the statement of PW-Masoo in its entirety, it clearly comes out that the prosecutrix at the time of occurrence could possibly be of around about 20 years old. The mother of the prosecutrix, PW-Indro Devi in her statement made before the trial Court states that, though, she does not vividly remember the time of her marriage but it could be possibly 25 years ago. She further states that the prosecutrix was born after five years of marriage. This will also bring the age of the prosecutrix to around about 20 years. 13. However, another evidence brought on record by the prosecution is the date of birth certificate issued by the Government School, Dug Baidel. PW-Tilak Raj, a R-e-T Teacher issued the date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix under his signatures after comparing it with the original record, which indicates the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 10.03.1997. In his deposition before the trial Court, he has proved the certificate and his signatures appended thereon. He has also admitted the same to be correct after comparing it with the original record, which was brought by him to the Court. Going by the entry made in the official record by an officer in the performance of his official duty, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is proved to be 10.03.1997 and, therefore, she was, undoubtedly, of the age of 10 years on the date of occurrence. 14. In the face of aforesaid evidence on record, pertinent question that arises for determination is, “whether the date of birth of the prosecutrix recorded in the admission register as 10.03.1997, as proved by PW-Tilak Raj, can be taken to be the conclusive proof of age of the prosecutrix notwithstanding the contrary evidence of her mother and maternal-grandfather. 15. Section 35 of the Evidence Act, Svt. 1977, which is relevant for the discussion on the point, reads thus:- “35. 15. Section 35 of the Evidence Act, Svt. 1977, which is relevant for the discussion on the point, reads thus:- “35. Relevancy of entry in public record made or an electric record in performance of duty An entry in any public or other official book, register or record, or an electric record stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or record or an electronic record is kept, is itself a relevant fact.” 16. Undoubtedly, under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, a public document, if prepared by a government official in the exercise of his official duty, is admissible in evidence. However, a question may arise as to the authenticity of such entry in the public record, particularly, in the face of availability of contrary evidence on record. A distinction needs to be drawn in respect of the admissibility of a document and its probative value. A document which is admissible in evidence may not have probative value of such degree as could be relied upon to convict an accused. The admissibility of a document and its probity are two different things. Entries made in public document like school register, voter list or family register prepared under Rules and Regulations in force may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but their probative value is still required to be examined in facts and circumstances of a particular case. Legal position on the subject is summed up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.27 of Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 714 . For facility of reference paragraph No.27 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “27. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized that the entry made in the official record by an official or person authorized in performance of an official duty is admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the party may still ask the Court/Authority to examine its probative value. The authenticity of the entry would depend as on whose instruction/information such entry stood recorded and what was his source of information. Thus, entry in school register/certificate requires to be proved in accordance with law. The authenticity of the entry would depend as on whose instruction/information such entry stood recorded and what was his source of information. Thus, entry in school register/certificate requires to be proved in accordance with law. Standard of proof for the same remains as in any other civil and criminal case.” 17. In the instant case, we find that, though, there is entry made in the admission register with regard to the date of birth of the prosecutrix, which makes her minor on the date of occurrence, yet there is nothing on record to corroborate the aforesaid entry. The persons on whose instructions such entry is supposed to be made in the admission register have not corroborated the entry. The mother of the prosecutrix, as we have discussed herein above, states that the prosecutrix was about 20 years old when the occurrence took place. The maternal-grandfather, with whom the prosecutrix along with her mother is staying after they were turned out by Dewan Chand, also puts the age of the prosecutrix at around about 20 years. In these circumstances, it is difficult to attach too much probative value to the entry in the school register in respect of the age of the prosecutrix. We are, therefore, in agreement with the trial Court that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the prosecutrix, at the time of occurrence, was less than 15 years of age. Factum of Marriage 18. There is enough evidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove that the prosecutrix and the respondent had entered into marriage wedlock and were husband and wife at the time of occurrence. PW-Masoo in his complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, which has been made basis for registration of FIR and in his testimony recorded before the trial Court has stated and admitted that the prosecutrix and the respondent contracted marriage in the month of June, 2007. He, however, states that this marriage was without his consent as well as consent of the prosecutrix's mother. In essence, he does not dispute that the marriage between the prosecutrix and the respondent had taken place and that same was subsisting on the date occurrence took place. 19. He, however, states that this marriage was without his consent as well as consent of the prosecutrix's mother. In essence, he does not dispute that the marriage between the prosecutrix and the respondent had taken place and that same was subsisting on the date occurrence took place. 19. The mother of the prosecutrix, in her statement recorded before the trial Court, while identifying the photographs of her daughter A-15 stated that only ceremony of "chuni" had taken place and not marriage with the respondent. PW-Narayan Dutt, PW-Chuni Lal and PW-Chaman Lal were other witnesses, who, in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., had supported the prosecution version that the two i.e. prosecutrix and the respondent were married, took a u-turn before the Court and stated that they did not know the prosecutrix and the respondent. They resiled from their statements and declined to stick to the prosecution story. 20. The trial Court has examined their statements made in the Court and their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C in light of the statements of other prosecution witnesses like PW-Koushalya Devi and PW-Indro Devi and concluded that there was sufficient evidence regarding marriage between the parties. 21. The evidence on record is, thus, not sufficient to prove the allegation of rape with which the respondent has been charged. Even if we were to presume that the respondent had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, yet in view of Exception 2 of Section 375 RPC, sexual intercourse with wife not below the age of 15 years is not rape and, therefore, not punishable. 22. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 23. Record be sent back to the trial Court.