appellant. On the contrary, she accompanied appellant quietly in a normal manner, which shows that prosecutrix was not kidnapped or abducted or taken by force by appellant from lawful guardianship of her parents, rather she was a consenting party. He also submits that in order to prove age of prosecutrix, the prosecution filed mark-sheet (Ex.P-12) in which date of birth of prosecutrix is mentioned as '3.6.1984'. This mark sheet is stated to have been seized from prosecutrix. However, prosecution failed to prove date of birth of prosecutrix in accordance with law as the person who recorded date of birth of prosecutrix in this mark sheet (Ex.P12) or the Principal of the school who had issued this mark sheet, was not examined before the Court below. Mere filing of mark-sheet is not sufficient to establish that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. This apart, the prosecutrix was not sent for ossification test / radiological examination to determine her age and in absence thereof, it cannot be said that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was below 18 years. The Court below, without there being any concrete evidence relating to age of prosecutrix, only considering that prosecutrix is student of Class 7th , erroneously ascertained her age to be 13-14 years. As per mark sheet Ex.P-12, age of prosecutrix on the date of incident was 16 year 10 months and therefore, even if it is admitted for sake of argument only that appellant established physical relation with prosecutrix, then the same would not fall within definition of Section 375 of IPC. It is also pointed out
