Whose statement is accepted when the slanderer claims the slander occurred during the complainant's minority, and the complainant claims it occurred during his majority?

Primary text

The statement of the slanderer is accepted because the default condition is minority, and the default state is exemption from the Hadd penalty. If the slanderer provides proof that the slander occurred during minority, and the complainant provides proof it occurred during majority, and the evidences are concurrent or dated differently, they represent two separate slanderous acts, one necessitating Ta'zir (discretionary punishment) and the other Hadd. If both evidences bear the same date but contradict on the age (one saying minor, one saying major), they nullify each other. If the evidence for majority predates the evidence for minority, only the majority evidence is considered, and the Hadd is established upon the slanderer if the complainant requests it. This ruling applies because the initial act of slander occurred when the accused was a Muslim of sound marital status, which demands the Hadd penalty based on the general principle of the relevant Quranic verse and the existence of the necessary rationale. Claims that would nullify the Hadd are not accepted from the slanderer.