Can a birth certificate that does not name the child be held to relate to the prosecutrix merely because the parents' names are similar?

Paragraph 13It is further relevant to note that P.W.3 in her evidence has denied the age mentioned in the school records. According to her, she was born only on 22.12.1999 and Ex.P.19 birth certificate was also filed to show that one female child was born to Marappan and Malliga, but a perusal of the Ex.P.19 would show that the name of the female child was not found, though the name of the father is shown as Marappan and the address is shown as Nedungaduthottam, Peruamapalayam, Ayyampalayam, whereas P.W.1 in his evidence does not state that Perumapalayam is situated within Ayyampalayam. He never stated that he was the resident of Nedungaduthottam. Therefore, when this fact was not established, it cannot be concluded that Ex.P.19 relates only to the birth of P.W.3. This court has to come to such a conclusion not only for such a small inconsistency as pointed out above, but also in view of the other factors. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 themselves create serious doubt about the age of P.W.3 as to whether it is correctly reflected in the school certificate or in her birth certificate. P.W.1 in his evidence would submit that her daughter was born in the year 1998, though P.W.2 mother denied the same and she has admitted that in the school certificate, the correct age of her daughter P.W.3 was not reflected. In her evidence, P.W.2 has admitted that at the time of admission of P.W.3 in the school, the Headmaster himself has written some date in the school records. Therefore, the school certificate relied on by the prosecution does not reflect the correct age even as per her mother. Therefore, the presumption attached to this document cannot be applied automatically.

Paragraph 14Similarly, though the prosecution has filed the birth certificate Ex.P.19 to show as if P.W.3 was born originally on 22.12.1999, as already stated, the name of the child was not mentioned in the birth certificate and the names of one Marappan and Malliga were shown as parents of the child and that the address mentioned in the birth certificate was also not tallied with the address of P.W.1. Therefore, merely because parents name was similar, it cannot be concluded that the Ex.P.19 birth certificate relates only to P.W.3. It is common in the village that there are many persons in similar name. Therefore, unless and until the birth certificate relied on by the prosecution is proved to be genuine and relating only to P.W.3, the age as mentioned by the prosecution to conclude that she was minor cannot be a certain one. It is further to be noted that, P.W.11, the medical officer, who has performed Ossification test, has found that P.W.3 has completed 17 years. It is well settled that as far as the ossification test is concerned, there is always two years error of margin on either side. Therefore, that cannot also be certain. At any event, when the evidence of parents itself indicate that the correct date of birth was not reflected in the school certificate and that the other certificates relied on by the prosecution also was not established, considering the fact that P.W.3 has also completed Plus 2, it is to be noted that she should have completed 17 years and further evidence also would indicate that even prior to that, she had also worked in a Banian company. Further, the brother of the victim, namely P.W.5 also has stated that there was love affair between P.W.3 and the accused.