certificate and not an extract of the admission register. True, as argued by the learned counsel for the defence, no reliance can be placed on Ext.P4 or the oral testimony of PW5. However, there are sufficient evidence on record to prove that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. PW2, who is none other than the mother of the victim, gave evidence to prove her age. Nothing could be extracted from her cross examination to doubt her evidence regarding the age of the victim. Ext.P16 is the Certificate issued by PW13, who is the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Pariyaram Medical College, who examined PW1 to determine her age. Ext.P16 report coupled with the oral testimony of PW13 would clearly prove that the victim was aged below 18 years at the time of the incident. Thus, the prosecution successfully established that, at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was aged below 18 years. The prosecution also successfully established that the accused committed forceful sex on the victim without her consent and impregnated her. Even though the defence has set up a case and justifies his acts on the ground that the victim was his legally married wife, there is nothing to substantiate the same. In these circumstances, I fully endorse the finding of the court below that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.
