He proved the said entries as having been written by him.
A case under Sections 366 and 376 was thereafter initiated against the Respondent.
In the said report, the Respondent herein was said to have been abducted her.
PW 5 Shri Jumuk Lal Sahu was an Assistant Teacher in the year 1977 78 when PW 1 was admitted in the said school.
In the appeal, the High Court did number enter into the evidences brought on record.
He stated on oath that while taking admission, her mother disclosed about the date of birth on the basis of which the same was recorded in the school register as 25.12.1970.
Nothing, in our opinion, has been elicited in the cross examination of the said witnesses to show that their statements were number companyrect.
The evidence of PW 3 the father of the prosecutrix was also disbelieved solely on the ground that he was number in a position to say about the date of birth of his other children.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that both the companyrts have arrived at the companyclusion that she was a companysenting party, in our opinion, it may number be proper to send the Appellant back to prison.A register maintained in a school is admissible in evidence to prove date of birth of the person companycerned in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Sushila Bai prosecutrix was born on 25.12.1970.
PW 5, who was an Assistant Teacher in the said school in the year 1977, categorically stated that the mother of the prosecutrix disclosed her date of birth.
Taking a lenient view of the matter, the Respondent was sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Such dates of births are recorded in the school register by the authorities in discharge of their public duty.
The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the said evidence opined that on the date of occurrence she was a minor.
The learned Sessions Judge opined that in view of the fact that the Respondent herein had number disputed that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix at Nagpur, the charge of rape must be held to have been proved.
It was, however, held that numbercase has been made out against the Respondent under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.
She lived for some time with the Respondent in a rented house.
She was married in the year 1985.
The last child Mukta was born in 1980.
She was admitted in Class I. Even by the village standard, she took admission in the school a bit late.
A First Information Report was lodged on 26.2.1986 by Jeewan Ram Chandel PW 6 who happened to be the brother in law of the prosecutrix Sushila Bai.
The prosecution admittedly was proceeding on the hypothesis that the Respondent had assured her that he would keep her like his wife.
Father of the prosecutrix also deposed to the said effect.
School Baj Gauda were examined.
The first informant was sent there by the father of the prosecutrix with the police party.
PW 4 Shri Vishnu Prasad Shrivastava was working as a Head Master in the primary government school Baj Gauda.
The materials on record as regard the age of the prosecutrix was, therefore, required to be companysidered on the aforementioned backdrop.
The Respondent herein is said to have induced her to leave the village along with him in the night intervening between 25th and 26th February, 1986.
PW 1 alleged in her evidence before the companyrt that she was taken out of the house by the Respondent stating that he would take her to the Narmada Fair.
He further stated that the son Santosh was born in the year 1973 and thereafter another son Kamlesh was born in 1976.
Both the companyrts proceeded on the basis that she was a companysenting party.
The prosecutrix was a mature girl.
The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge was reversed on the premise that entries made in a school register is number companyclusive evidence as regards the date of birth of PW 1.
Before the learned Trial Judge, evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution to show that as on 25.2.1986, she was minor.
PW 1 was recovered on 23.3.1987.
She was, therefore, about 6 7 years old at that time.
She came back to her parents place from her in laws house after the gauna ceremeony was celebrated.
PW 3 is the father of the prosecutrix.
She was married in the year 1985 when she was evidently a minor.
The special leave petition was filed by the State 230 days after the prescribed period of limitation for preferring such appeal.
PW 1 prosecutrix admitted that she was the third child of her parents and two of her sisters are elder to her.
According to him, his eldest daughter Uttara was born in the year 1966 and the second daughter Nandni Kumari in 1968.
The Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court in the year 1987.
Apart from the statement of the prosecutrix herself, her father PW 3 as also the Head Master PW 4 and the Assistant Teacher PW 5 of the Primary Govt.
She was admitted in a village school in 1977.
He further stated that the date of birth of PW 1 was certified by Shakuntala Devi, mother of the prosecutrix.
She was married.
They, thus, knew each other for a long time.
The occurrence took place in the year 1986.
The father of the prosecutrix, however, was asked by the officer in charge of the police station to produce proof of her age whereupon certificate as per the school register was filed.
He is said to have remained in custody for about one and a half year.
She denied the said suggestion as presumably she was aware that she being married, the question of her marrying the Respondent again may number arise.
The Trial Court did so.
The prosecutrix PW 1 and the Respondent thereafter were found to be residing at Nagpur.
The entry in the school register showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix to be 25.12.1970 was proved.
The same remained pending about 10 years.
She is said to have been born on 25.12.1970.
The prosecution evidently companyld number prove its case that she was enticed away from the custody of her guardian by the Respondent on a false plea that he would marry her.
She spent a few months in her in laws place.
She stayed in her in laws place for some time and after the gauna ceremony, she came back.
When she denied the said fact, she was declared hostile.
The prosecutrix took admission in the year 1977.
The Respondent was working in her house.
The learned Sessions Judge proceeded on the basis that having regard to the age of the prosecutrix the stand of the defence that the accused had sexual intercourse with her with companysent was of little importance.
B. SINHA, J The Respondent herein was working in the house of the father of Sushila Bai PW 1 .
