No doubt, the facts stated above lead to the only conclusion that the prosecutrix had left her house with the appellant with her consent, but the prosecutrix cannot be said to be a consenting party in this case as she was minor at the time of occurrence. The Birth Certificate (Exhibit P.24) which relates to the prosecutrix and her name has been written it has been proved by Dr. Vijay Kumari Kakkar (P.W.9). According to the Birth Certificate (Exhibit P.24) the Date of Birth of the prosecutrix is 5.1.1989. Registration of the birth of prosecutrix was made by her parents on 17.1.1989. Generally name of the newly born is not written on the Birth Certificates. However, as the registration of the birth of the prosecutrix was made on 17.1.1989 in this case, there was sufficient time to name the child. As such, if the name of the prosecutrix is mentioned in the record of Registrar of Births and Deaths, it cannot be said that the entry is false. The prosecutrix, during her cross-examination also gave her Date of Birth as 15.1.1989. The prosecutrix had also given her age as fifteen years when she was medico-legally examined by Dr.Sumandeep Kaur Grewal (P.W.1). Thus, the date of birth of the prosecutrix has to be taken as 5.1.1989. The occurrence took place on 8.5.2004 and when calculated, the age of
