As per case facts, the appellant was convicted for various offenses, including sexual intercourse with a minor. The appellant filed an appeal, contending that there was insufficient evidence, particularly regarding ... the prosecutrix's age and an alleged continuous relationship. The trial court, however, determined the prosecutrix to be a minor and convicted the appellant. The question arose regarding the determination of the victim's age, specifically whether the non-conduct of an ossification test, despite medical advice, affected the prosecution's case, and how different documents proving age should be prioritized under relevant rules. Finally, the court clarified that if a doctor advised an ossification test but it was not conducted, the prosecution's case is not affected, provided other documents like school birth certificates or matriculation certificates are available. The ossification test becomes necessary only when these primary documents are absent. Based on the victim's testimony and school records, her age was determined to be below 18 years at the time of the incident, specifically 12 years, 11 months, and 21 days. The High Court, upholding the trial court's decision, confirmed the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, including a positive DNA report, and dismissed the appeal.