the statement of PW-1 is unbelievable and material contradictions in her deposition indicated that she cannot be relied to convict appellant. While referring the cross-examination of PW-1, he submitted that she travelled voluntarily with appellant. While referring statement of PW-3, he submitted that the suspicion of abduction was on Ramvilas and present appellant was not named. He further submitted that there was no medical evidence to corroborate rape by present appellant and for the purpose, he referred the statement of PW-17. He further submitted that the age of victim was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that PW-1 in her statement submitted that she studied in Delahedi whereas to prove date of birth, record of Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Badwa was produced and he further submitted that on entire set of documents and statement before the court, father of victim affixed his thumb impression whereas in Ex.P-14 signature of father of victim was available which indicated that either Ex.P-14 was forged and fabricated or prosecution had submitted incorrect documents. He further relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of MP Vs. Munna @ Shambhoo Nath ABC 2015 (II) 332 SC and submitted that the date of birth of victim was required to be proved as per Section 35 of Evidence Act and in case of doubt age, conviction cannot be secured. He further submitted the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit 1988 (Supp) SCC 604 to fortify his contention regarding date of birth. While referring contradictions and discrepancies, he submitted that appellant was falsely implicated and evidence of PW1 is not trustworthy, therefore,
