The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the medico legal estimation of prosecutrix's age based on an ossification test, the report being dated 31.03.2018 which is placed at page no. 57/58 of the paper book, the prosecutrix has been opined to be 18 years. It is submitted that the prosecutrix is, therefore, clearly a major, and, the provisions of of POCSO Act would not at all be attracted. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where it is said that the applicant has forcibly taken the prosecutrix with one Golu and housed her in his sister's home at some place in Himachal Pradesh. It is also said that the applicant thereafter got her forcibly married to Golu with whom she started living and had carnal relations by her consent. It is pointed out, by contrast, that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has said that she and Golu went along with the applicant on his motorcycle to Mau railway station wherefrom both of them proceeded to Delhi; from Delhi to Bareilly and thence to Himachal pradesh where they married according to Hindu Rites and now she is living with Golu as man and wife. To the same effect, is in her statement made before the doctor in confidence, a copy of which is annexed at page no. 32 of paper book. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecutrix is an adult and eloped with co-accused Golu, whom she married and the role assigned to the applicant is of facilitating her, for the most part, except the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where the allegation is of forcibly taking her away and forcibly marrying her to Golu, which
