1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3556/2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.687/2008 State of Maharashtra At the instance of Ramnagar Police Station, Chandrapur ...Versus... Raju s/o Ganpat Dewangan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri A.S. Fulzele, APP for applicant] CORAM:- A.H. JOSHI AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 09.01.2009 1. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused in relation to charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The finding leading to the acquittal is on the point of prosecutrix being above the age of consent and her having willingly accompanied the accused. 3. The fact of age of consent is proved from the opinion given by the Doctor based on the ossification test and error of 2-3 years which is permissible. 2 4. Learned A.P.P. Shri A.S. Fulzele has urged strong ground for appeal, namely, a birth certificate, issued by the Block Development Officer. 5. We have perused the certificate which itself shows that it is issued on the basis of register maintained under the Birth and Death Registration Act. Admittedly, certified copy of the said entry has not been brought on record. 6. A certificate issued on the basis of entry could not by itself be proof of the fact represented therein, except that the possibility of existence of such register. This certificate therefore does not prove the age of prosecutrix to be below 16 years. 7. This certificate does not in any manner stand superior proof than the expert's evidence of age of the prosecturix. 8. In these premises, we find that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are not entitled to be disagreed with the evidence on record. 9. On the other hand, the evidence has been properly appreciated and the findings are not vitiated as being perverse. 10. No interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. 11. Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE