S.S. BYAS, J.—This is an appeal by accused Puran Singh against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated December 8, 1981 convic-ting the appellant under section 376, IPC and sentencing him to four years rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix P.W. 6 Mst. Bhanwari aged about 14-15 years was grazing her live-stock in the field of Sheojiram Jat situate in Moza Chitai in the afternoon of 20.6.80. At about 4 p.m. the accused suddenly appeared there and caught hold of the prosecutrix. He pushed her down and started committing sexual intercourse with her. The girl resisted and raised cries. Hearing her out-cries, P.W. 7 Gordhan, P.W. 8 Purkharam and P.W. 10 Nandsingh came there. The prosecutrix sustained some injuries on her body including the private parts. When the accused left her, she straight way went to her house and narrated the incident to her mother P.W. 4 Mst. Jadawati. Her father P.W. 5 Dhanna was not there. When he returned in the evening, the incident was narrated to him also. He went to police station, Peelwa and lodged written report Ex. P/5 on 22.6.80. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted at 10 am. on 23.6.80 by P.W. 2 Dr. S.N. Sharma the then Medical Officer-in-charge, Government Dispensary, Harsor. He noticed some injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. He also noticed some stains on the petti-coat of the prosecutrix. He took the cutting of that portion and sealed it. He prepared slides of the smear and swab taken from her vagina and sealed them. He sent these packets to the investigating officer for chemical examination. He was of the opinion that the prosecutrix had been raped. The ossification test of the prosecutrix was made in J N. Medical College, Ajmer. On the basis of this test, Medical Jurist Dr. B.K. Mathur (P.W. 1) gave the opinion that the age of the prosecutrix was 15 16 years. The police seized the petti-coat and the blouse of the prosecutrix, which she was wearing at the time of the occurrence. The accused was arrested on 7.7.80 and the under-wear, he was wearing at the time of the commission of offence was recovered in consequence of the information furnished by him on 10.7.80. The police seized the petti-coat and the blouse of the prosecutrix, which she was wearing at the time of the occurrence. The accused was arrested on 7.7.80 and the under-wear, he was wearing at the time of the commission of offence was recovered in consequence of the information furnished by him on 10.7.80. The slides and the clothes of the prosecutrix and the accused, were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. Human semen was detected on all of them. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar, who in his turn committed the case for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 323, 324 and 376, IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence taken by him was that of complete denial. It was averred by him that there were factions in the village on account of elections. One Gulabchand was on inimical terms with him. He has, thus, been falsely implicated at the behest of Gulabchand. During trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses while in defence no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under section 376. IPC. He further held that the injuries sustained by the prosecutrix were on account of the struggle, she put at the time of the commission of rape. As such, no separate conviction was recorded for offences under sections 323 and 324, IPC. The accused was, accordingly, sentenced under section 376, IPC. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the accused has taken this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the case file carefully. 4. In assailing the conviction of the accused, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is that the court-below crept into an error in taking the prosecutrix to be below sixteen years of age. It was argued that as per medical evidence, the age of the girl was 15 or 16 years. The estimate of the age on the basis of the ossification test is not conclusive. There is always a margin of one or two years either side. It was argued that in these circumstances, the age of the girl should be taken above 16 years. The estimate of the age on the basis of the ossification test is not conclusive. There is always a margin of one or two years either side. It was argued that in these circumstances, the age of the girl should be taken above 16 years. The question of age of the prosecutrix, in the instant case is of much importance because it has been alleged that she was under 16 years of age. As such, her consent, even if it was there, is no consent in the eye of law. Now under Clause Fifth of Section, 375, IPC, sexual intercourse with a woman under the age of 16 years is rape irrespective of any consent on her part. The prosecution has examined the parents of the victim and adduced medical evidence to prove that she was below 16 years of age at the time of the commission of rape. P.W. 4 Mst. Jadawati is the mother of the prosecutrix. She deposed that the prosecutrix was nearly 13 years of age, when rape was committed upon her. In cross-examination, she deposed that she has three children. The eldest is a son, who was 16 years of age. Next to him is the prosecutrix, three years younger to him. The third again is a daughter, four years younger to the prosecutrix. P.W. 5 Dhanna is the father of the prosecutrix. He deposed that she was 13 years in age at the time of the commission of offence. He was not at all cross-examined on the question of her age. His statement, as regards her age, thus, stands unimpeached and unassailed. 5. The ossification test of the prosecutrix was conducted on 28.7.80 in J.N. Medical College Hospital, Ajmer. The reports of the test are Ex. P/l and Ex. P/2. The Medical Jurist Dr. Mathur (P.W.I) stated that x-ray of the following joints of the prosecutrix was taken :- Pelvis - Iliac crest is separate. Elbow - Lateral spicondyle and olecranon have fused. But medial epicondyle head of radius have partially fussion. Wrist - Heads of meta-carpals are separate. Lower ends of radius and ulna are separate. 6. Doctor Mathur stated that on the basis of the test of ossification of the joints of the prosecutrix he was of the opinion that she was 15-16 years of age. But medial epicondyle head of radius have partially fussion. Wrist - Heads of meta-carpals are separate. Lower ends of radius and ulna are separate. 6. Doctor Mathur stated that on the basis of the test of ossification of the joints of the prosecutrix he was of the opinion that she was 15-16 years of age. In cross-examination he refuted the suggestion that her age could be somewhere between 16 to 18 years. He was not cross-examined on any other point to shake his opinion. A Doctor is in a better position than a layman to form an opinion about the age of a person. Where he brings scientific knowledge to bear upon his opinion, his opinion, is entitled to weight and credit. The testi-money of an expert can not be lightly brushed aside simply because. What he states is merely an opinion. In Ramphool vs. State (1)it was observed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (as he then was) that the evidence of a Radiologist as to the age of the prosecutrix in a case of rape is conclusive and must be acted upon. 7. Taking thus the two sets of evidence viz. parents of the prosecutrix and the opinion of Dr. Mathur {P.W.1), it can be safely held that she was below 16 years of age, when rape was committed upon her. 8. The next pertinent question that arises for deliberation and decision, is whether sexual intercourse was committed with the prosecutrix by the accused. The prosecutrix P.W. 6 Mst. Bhanwari deposed that she was grazing live-stock in the field of Sheojiram Jat on the day of occurrence. All of a sudden at about 4 p.m. the accused appeared there and caught hold of her in his arms. He felled her down and committed rape upon her. She resisted and raised cries. But the accused held her firmly and did not leave her. The accused gave teeth bites on her cheeks and breasts. Hearing her out-cries, P.W. 7 Gordhan and P.W.8 Purkharam came there and tried to intervene. The accused slapped them and they went away. Just then, P.W. 11 Nandsingh came there and rescued her from the clutches of the accused. She got up and stright way went to her home, where she narrated the incident to her mother Mst. Jadawati (P.W.4) She was cross-examined, but her testimony on the whole remained unshaken and unpunctured. The accused slapped them and they went away. Just then, P.W. 11 Nandsingh came there and rescued her from the clutches of the accused. She got up and stright way went to her home, where she narrated the incident to her mother Mst. Jadawati (P.W.4) She was cross-examined, but her testimony on the whole remained unshaken and unpunctured. There is nothing to put her statement at a discount. She is a rustic illiterate village girl. Her testimony is serene, pure and unblamished. It inspires confidence and is in itself sufficient to seek the conviction of the accused. She has no animus against the accused. It is beyond comprehension that she would make a false charge of rape against him. 9. There is then ample corroboration from various independent sources to her testimony. Dr. Sharma conducted her medical examination and noticed the following:- 1. Marks of violence on the body-Marks of teeth bite on left cheek upper and lower teeth mark in circular area over 1" diameter. Teeth marks now heeling gradually with scab formation. Swelling present over the left side face around the teeth mark 2-1/2|" x 2-1/2" area, bluish in clour. 2. Abrasion 1-1/4" x 1/8" on the right hand dorsal aspect of right ring finger just below the proximal and middle phalanx joint scab formed over the abrasion. Examination of Genitals- (1) Pubic hair not matted send for separmato. No dried seminal stain found on the external genitaria. (2) No fresh blood found on exam, from the vagina. 3. Hymen teared having two radiate tears going towards peripherally on right side. Painful on touching edges are towards healing No bleeding from the eges. 10. He was of the opinion that the prosecutrix had been raped. He prepared slides after taking smear and swab from her vagina. He also took the cutting of her petti-coat containing the stains. The under-wear of the accused was also seized by the police during investigation. As per report Ex.P. 15 of the Forensic Science Laboratory, human semen was detected on all these articles. 11. P.W.6 Gordhan and P.W 7 Purkharam stated that when they were going to the well, they heard the screams of the prosecutrix in a field. They went towards that side and saw the accused committing sexual intercourse with her. They tried to intervene and the accused got enraged. 12. 11. P.W.6 Gordhan and P.W 7 Purkharam stated that when they were going to the well, they heard the screams of the prosecutrix in a field. They went towards that side and saw the accused committing sexual intercourse with her. They tried to intervene and the accused got enraged. 12. P.W. 10 Nandsingh, of course lent no support and turned hostile to the prosecution. His hostile attitude, however, does not diminish the value of the testimony of the prosecutrix. Not only so, even if the testimony of P.W. 7 Gordhan and P.W.8 Purkharam is excluded from consideration, it does not adversely affect that direct testimony of the victim 13. Learned counsel for the accused strived hard to impress that there were two factions in the village due to elections. The parents of the prosecutrix were in one group and the accused was in the rival group. The present case was the out-come of that group rivalry. I find no force in the contention. As admitted by the parents of the prosecutrix, there are, of course, two rival groups in the village. But the rival-groups and the party factions are common features today. They are found almost in every village. The testimony of the prosecutrix can not be thrown away only on this ground. She was a virgin and would never make a humaliating statement against her honour unless it is true. 14. There may be some exaggerations here and there in the prosecution story e.g. P.W.7 Gordhan and P.W.8 Purkharam were slapped by the accused or that the accused went to the house of the prosecutrix after the incident and beat her mother. These exaggerations are only embroidery and do not destroy the main substratum of the prosecution case viz. rape. 15. It thus stands well proved that the accused committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix. Since, she was below 16 years of age at that time, it amounted to rape. 16. Assuming now that the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age, the prosecution case may be examined in that light. Where sexual intercourse is committed with a woman above 16 years of age, it is obligatory on the prosecu-tion to prove that it was against her will or without her consent. 16. Assuming now that the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age, the prosecution case may be examined in that light. Where sexual intercourse is committed with a woman above 16 years of age, it is obligatory on the prosecu-tion to prove that it was against her will or without her consent. In a case of rape with a woman above 16 years of age, the absence of her consent is an essential ingredient of the offence and must be strictly proved by the prosecution. Law does not cast a duty on the accused to show that he committed sexual intercourse with the consent of the prosecutrix. Even if the accused has not raised the defence of consent, it is the duty of the court to examine the prosecution case from all sides to ascertain whether there was absence of consent or not. Now, the consent or absence of it is to be gathered from attendent circumstances arising in a given case. No hard and fast rule can be formulated as to what circumstances would make out the consent or absence of it. It all depend on the peculiar circumstances of a given case, in which sexual intercourse had taken place. The prosecutrix P.W.6 Mst. Bhanwari deposed that the accused suddenly appeared in the field, felled her down and committed sexual intercourse with her. She offered resistance. The accused gave teeth bites on her cheeks and breasts. Her medical evidence reveals that she had sustained injuries on her cheeks and right hand. Marks of voilance and injuries were also found on her private parts, Hymen was found recently teared. The first and foremost circumstance, generally, expected in a case of rape is the evidence of resistance from the victim. If the victim is unwilling to yield to sexual intercouirse. She is expected to receive injuries on her person. The absence of injuries on the body of the prosecutrix, generally, gives rise to an inference that she was a willing and consenting party to coition. Here, in the instant case, injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix. That indicates that she offered resistance when subjected to sexual intercourse. The resistance is offered when the victim of rape is not a consenting party. 17. There is yet another important factor, which shows the absence of consent on the part of the prosecutrix. P.W. 2 Dr. That indicates that she offered resistance when subjected to sexual intercourse. The resistance is offered when the victim of rape is not a consenting party. 17. There is yet another important factor, which shows the absence of consent on the part of the prosecutrix. P.W. 2 Dr. Sharma deposed that no sexual intercourse had taken place with the prosecutrix before the rape was committed upon her. It is difficult to imagine that an unmarried girl would willingly surrender her virtue to the miscreant. There is nothing to suggest that the prosecutrix wanted to have a good time with the accused. Virginity is the most precious possession of an Indian girl. Rarely, she parts away with this precious possession At least, she would not surrender her virtue in a broad day light and that too in an open field exposed to all. There were two rival groups in the village. It is difficult to imagine that the prosecutrix would surrender her virginity to a person of a rival group. These circumstances strongly show that the sexual intercourse was committed with the prosecutrix against her will and without her consent. The contention of the accused that the prosecutrix was a willing and consenting party to the act of coition is wholly untenable. 18. An attempt was made by the learned counsel to impress that the delay in lodging the first informatian report renders the prosecution story of rape highly suspicious. It is true that there was some delay in making the report to police. The offence was committed at about 4 p.m. on 20.6.80, and the first information report was lodged at 8 p m. on 22.6.80. However, this delay is not fatal to the prosecution. The father of the prosecutrix is an illiterate village man. Moreover, as said earlier, no young girl comes forward to make a humaliating statement against her honour of having been raped unless it is true. 19. P.W. 5 Dhanna, father of the prosecutrix, of course turned hostile to the prosecution and denied to have lodged report Ex. P/5 at the police station. His hostile attitude is not understandable. However, his hostile attitude does not adversely effect the prosecution case. He has no direct knowledge of the incident. His evidence is more or less hearsay. 20. No other contention was raised. The accused was rightly convicted. P/5 at the police station. His hostile attitude is not understandable. However, his hostile attitude does not adversely effect the prosecution case. He has no direct knowledge of the incident. His evidence is more or less hearsay. 20. No other contention was raised. The accused was rightly convicted. In a case of rape, the sentence of four years can not be said to be unduly harsh or excessive. 21. In the result, the appeal of accused Puran Singh is dismissed. He was on bail during pendency of the appeal and is absent today. He is allowed 15 days time to surrender himself before the learned Sessions Judge, Merta. In case, he fails to do so, the learned Sessions Judge will issae a warrant of arrest against him and commit him to jail to serve out the unexpired portion of his sentence.