committed sexual intercourse with her. When she returned to her house, she narrated the entire incident to her parents. This witness has categorically admitted that there was love relation between them. In these circumstances and on the basis of admission made by the prosecutrix herself, the trial Court has arrived to the conclusion that the Prosecutrix was the consenting party in the alleged act. Thus, the finding of the trial Court in this regard is in accordance with the statement of the prosecutrix. With regard to the age of the Prosecutrix, in her court statement the prosecutrix has deposed that she is aged about 15 years. In para 7 of her cross-examination, she also admitted that her elder sister is 20 years older than her and her sister is having two children. She further admitted that her elder brother is aged about 21 years. In para 8 of her crossexamination, she admitted that she is having menses for 8-9 years. Durgavati (PW2), mother of the Prosecutrix and Lallu Yadav (PW3), father of the Prosecutrix have deposed that the age of the Prosecutrix is about 15 years and she got birth in the year 1984. According to the mark-sheet Article-A-1, the date of birth of the Prosecutrix has been mentioned as 01/07/1984, but in this regard Lallu Yadav (PW3) has admitted the fact that he had registered the date of birth of the Prosecutrix in school on presumption. Both the witnesses are not able to state the exact date of birth of the Prosecutrix. Even, they are also not able to tell their exact date of births. Apart from this, from the statement of Dr. Smt. Kalavati Patel, it is also established that she had advised for ossification test for determining the age of the Prosecutrix, but inspite of that the Prosecution did not do so.
