OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OM Parkash has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide his order dated 16th March, 1982. The learned trial Judge has come to a definite finding that the prosecutrix in this case was consenting party. Even according to Lady Dr. Prem Lata Sood PW 2, who examined the prosecutrix, there was no mark of violence over any part of her body. The hymen was completely raptured. The teat was an old one. The uterus was anteverted and the size was normal.

(2.) THE prosecutrix was never subjected to an ossification test for ascertainment of her age for reasons best known to the prosecution. The trial Judge has recorded the conviction only on the ground that at the time of the alleged occurrence she was 14 years and 7 months old according to school certificate and the admission form in the school which has been proved by the father of the prosecutrix, Sukhdev Singh PW 5. There is no other evidence on record regarding the age of prosecutrix. Mr. H.S. Bhullar, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the conviction cannot be based on the school certificate on the admission form which by its nature is not conclusive piece of evidence. In this connection he referred me to Jai Narain v. The State of Haryana, 1974 C.L.R. (S. N. 6), wherein it has been held that an entry in the school register is not of much evidentiary value and is not conclusive. Further the learned Single Judge was pleased to observe that it is matter of common knowledge that the date of birth given at the time of admission of a boy or girl in a school is seldom correct and more often than not the age given is less than the actual age of the child. I agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction cannot be recorded on this solitary piece of evidence, i.e. the admission form in the school. So I find that the prosecution in this case has failed to prove beyond doubt that the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age at the time of the occurrence. Consequently I give the benefit of doubt to appellant, allow his appeal and acquit him. Appeal allowed.