dubious and therefore, basing conviction on such tainted evidence would not be safe. It is asserted that in the FIR, Exhibit-P21 which got lodged at the behest of Ramdhan (PW-6), the father of the prosecutrix that it was Amrit who while impostering himself as a woman came to his agricultural field and forcibly took away his daughter 'Ms. M'. At a subsequent stage, the name of the appellant has been inserted. Learned counsel further drew attention towards statement of PW-1, the prosecutrix wherein even in her examination-in-chief, she admits that while eloping with the appellant, she took Rs.10,000/- and 1Kg silver ornaments with her. In the first line of her examination-in-chief she stated that she made a phone call to her boyfriend Deshraj who is the appellant here and called him to take her away and thereafter she went with him and roamed at various places and even used public transport. As far as the question of the prosecutrix being minor is concerned, learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards certain documents made by PW-6-Ramdhan, the father of the prosecutrix, who even did not know his date of birth and was having no document on the basis of which the date of birth was mentioned in the school record. The documents Exhibit-D2 to D4 have been produced on behalf of defence wherein the age of victim has been shown above 18 years when her marriage got solemnized in a community gathering. He submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate correct and factual aspects of the matter and thus committed a grave error of law in convicting the accused.
