posted as Incharge Headmaster at Jamunia Primary School, has been examined. He deposed that date of birth of the prosecutrix was mentioned in register as 06.01.1981. As per the prosecution case, date of incident is 15.4.1997 and, therefore, it is contended by the prosecution that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident as she was below 18 years of age as per Indian Majority Act,. 1875. This witness deposed that he has not made any entry in the register, but the entry was made by one Incharge Headmaster Rajesh Kumar. From the statement of this witness, it is not established whether the prosecutrix was admitted by her parents or not. Ramkumar (PW-11), father of the prosecutrix, did not state the date of birth of the prosecutrix. Chameli Bai (PW12), mother of the prosecutrix, also did not state the date of birth of the prosecutrix. From the statement of Ramkumar (PW-11) it is not established that he admitted the prosecutrix in the school situated at Village Sangpur. Though the school register of Sarangpur was produced before the trial Court, but the entries made in the Register were not proved. In the matter Birad Mal Sighvi Vs. Anand Purohit reported in AIR 1988 SC 1796, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the date of birth mentioned in the school register has no evidentiary value unless either the person who made the entry in the register is examined or the person on whose information the entry may have been made, is examined. In the present case, neither the person who made the entry nor the person who gave the information regarding the date of birth has been examined by the prosecution, therefore, entry
