Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. At this stage it is worthwhile to emphasis on the decision reported in:

1. (NOC) 710(BOM), wherein it had been observed that:
"S.375, Cl. Sixthly-Rape-Age of victim-Proof-Date of birth mentioned in school certificate-Head Master of her school deposing that entry as to her date of birth was made on basis of school leaving certificate from first attended school-He proving document on basis of original record-Date of birth mentioned in school certificate can be taken as her date of birth ."

2. Crl.L.J. 2003 Page 2777, it had been observed that:

"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."

3. 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 prosecurtrix-Age of prosecurtrix cannot be said to be below 16 years on date of incident in view of opinion of Radiologist-Prosecurtrix 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."
"Penal Code (45 of 1860), S,.376-Rape-Proof- Accused alleged to have had sexual intercourse with prosecurtrix by promising to marry her-However prosecurtrix not stating that accused had committed rape on her but stating that she did not know what happened to her-Questions put to her elicited from statements made before police and not from facts-Cannot be relied on-Thus no material found to establish guilt of accused-Order of conviction set-aside ."