Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.363, 376-Kidnapping and Rape-Proof-Age of prosecurtrix-Determination-Allegations that accused came to house of prosecurtrix in midnight and took her to another place and committed rape against her will- Ossification tests report proving prosecurtrix was more than 18 years of age-But school certificate showing that she was below 16 years of age-No evidence showing as to on what basis and at whose instance the date of birth was written in the school register-Also non-production of original school register in Court- Failure on part of prosecution to prove that prosecurtrix was below 19 years of age-Conviction of accused, not proper."

Further in Crl. L.J. 2004 Page 2359, it had been observed that:

"Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss.65, 35-Age of victim girl- Proof-School certificate prepared on basis of admission form cannot be said to be a primary piece of evidence-Non-production of admission form which is primary evidence in Court-School certificate would be in admissible in evidence.
Penal Code (45 of 1860), S-376-Rape-Proof-School certificate showing prosecurtrix below 16 years of age-Said certificate which has been prepared on basis of admission form cannot be said to be a primary piece of evidence-Evidence of witnesses contradictory to each other regarding age of proseutrix-Age of prosecurtrix cannot be said to be below 16 years on date of incident in view of opinion of Radiologist- Prosecutirx not disclosing said incident for near about 4 or 5 months and accused cohabited with her during said period- Story of cohabitation without her consent not inspiring confidence-Conviction of accused, not proper."