4 The learned advocate for the applicant submitted it is a case of consent and not a case of forcible sexual intercourse. The learned APP contended that as the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the relevant time, hence, assuming that there was consent on her part, such consent is immaterial. To support her contention, she has placed reliance on Exh. 23 which shows that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 16.6.1994. The learned APP pointed out that the first incident of rape occurred on 16.4.2008 and as per Exh. 23 as the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident, her consent is immaterial. However, it is seen that the prosecution has brought on record not only certificate Exh. 23 wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix was shown as 16.6.1994 but it has also brought on record another document Exh. 86 wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix is shown on 11.5.1992. This is a certificate issued by the school showing date of birth as 16.6.1994. Looking to the fact that there is discrepancy in the date of birth of the victim girl in both these Exhibits and the fact that evidence of Dr. Gaikwad the Medical Officer from the civil hospital shows that the prosecutrix was 17 to 19 years of age at the time of the incident, I am of
