with her. Even when PW-9 (Sanjay) enquired as to what had happened, she did not divulge anything and silently went to her garage. When her statement (Ex.PW-8/A) came to be recorded, again she did not identify the appellant to be the perpetrator of the crime to have established physical relations with her against her wises. Initially, the prosecutrix did not get herself medically examined and did not report sexual assault to the doctor as recorded in the history in the MLC (Ex.PW-3/A). Subsequently, when appellant’s involvement came to light, ‘X’ was medically examined vide MLC (Ex.PW-3/B). She did not suffer any external injury on her body including private parts. Hymen however was not intact. From all the circumstances, it can be inferred that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the coitus. The Trial Court in the impugned judgment also considered this aspect. 7. X’s age is material to infer the appellant’s guilt. In her testimony before the Court recorded on 10.11.2010 ‘X’ disclosed her age around 16 years. She was not cross-examined regarding her age; no specific date of birth was suggested to her. Material testimony is that of PW-7 (Sudarshana Verma), Principal, Raghumal Arya Kanya Vidhyalya, Evening Shift, NDMC, who brought the record and deposed that ‘X’ was admitted in their school in 2004 in 1st class and she studied there till 2008. On 16.09.2008 her name was struck out due to long absence. As per record, her date of birth was 15.08.1998; it was recorded on the basis of an affidavit given by her father. Certificate (Ex.PW-7/A) was based upon the affidavit (Ex.PW-7/B). The witness was not cross-examined. Correctness and genuineness of the school certificate was not suspected. Nothing was suggested if the date of birth 15.08.1998 did not reflect her exact age. Since
