evidence to conclusively prove the age of the victim. The dates of birth mentioned in the School Transfer Certificate, Aadhar Card, statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C, communication sent by the school, MLC and the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are at variance with each other. To resolve this material contradiction, summons were sent to the Principal of the school, where the victim allegedly studied, but as per the report filed on behalf of the State before the Trial Court, the school had closed down in 2019 and the Principal has expired. Thus, the correct age of the prosecutrix, on the date of the incident, is itself under suspicion. Case of the prosecution that applicant forcibly took the prosecutrix to Haridwar in a bus, married her at Ganga ghat and took her to a hotel, where he made physical relationships with her, cannot be believed. It is a matter of common knowledge that any public transport, public ghat or a hotel, would be crowded and if the applicant was forcibly taking the prosecutrix, she had enough opportunity and occasions to make noise and seek help, which was admittedly not done, even going by the prosecution case and the evidence led so far. Testimony of PW-7 Vipin Kumar does not inspire confidence. No credible evidence was led to prove the stay of the applicant with the prosecutrix at the hotel either in the form of entry register, tariff payment vouchers, CCTV footage etc. In fact, PW-7 stated in his examination-in-chief that he had made an entry at serial No. 175 on 14.03.2017, when applicant and the prosecutrix came to his hotel and represented themselves to be a married couple, but in the cross-examination, he stated that he had not recorded any entry at serial No. 175 in the register. Thus, there is no primary evidence against the applicant linking him to the alleged offence.
