In view of the plea put up on behalf of accused Mustaq that the appellant had accompanied him of her own as she was in love with him, age of the appellant assumes significance. Bhagwan Dass (PW5), on the strength of certificate, Exhibit PM, and school record, Exhibit PM/1, had stated that the appellant was born on 14.05.1997. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that there was no documentary evidence in proof of date of birth of the appellant. In such a situation, date of birth of the appellant as recorded in the school record cannot be taken to be correct. In complaint, Exhibit PA, appellant’s age is given as 14-15 years. Maker of this statement, Sahun (PW1), however, when called upon to tell date of birth of the appellant in his crossexamination, could not tell the date, month or year of her birth. At the time of making statement, Exhibit PB, under Section 164, CrPC, on 31.10.2011, even the appellant gave her age as 14 years. However, prior thereto on 17.10.2011, she had appeared before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hodal, to make statement, Exhibit DB, under Section 164, CrPC, and stated her age as 19
