JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—Accused, Jagdish has assailed the correctness of his conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur in Criminal Case No. 6-N/7 of 1988 decided on 11-9-1989 for offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code for which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 and in default of the payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. In addition, he has been convicted under section 506 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment—both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, briefly, is that Smt. Rukmani Devi sent the prosecutrix aloogwith her brother Tek Chand to the jungle to bring the cattle from Gulabgarh Khala Accordingly, the prosecutrix and her brother reached the place, looked for the cattle but they could not be traced. There, the accused came and stated that the Block Officer gave a Parchi which should be given by the prosecutrix to her father but he later refused to accept it. The accused also told the prosecutrix and her brother that the catties were in his fields so they should accompany him. The accused made them sit under a Jamun tree where soon after the accused lifted the prosecutrix who raised alarm, but the accused put his thumb on her neck and bite her on her cheek and took her to the bushes where she was laid on the ground. There, the accused untied the string of her Salwar, put his legs upon her legs and did Jabardasti Blood oozed out from her private parts and during this time the prosecutrix continued raising alarm, but the accused had been putting his hand over her mouth. He left the place and while doing so threatened the prosecutrix that he would kill her and her brother in case she narrated the occurrence to any person As a result of the act of the accused, the Salwar of the prosecutrix was stained with blood. 3. The case against the accused further is that the prosecutrix narrated this occurrence to her mother Smt. Rukmani (PW 3), and her father Dhani Ram (PW 4) when he came back to the house in the evening. They went to the Pardhan and thereafter on the next morning lodged a report (Ext. PH) at Police Post, Majra. 3. The case against the accused further is that the prosecutrix narrated this occurrence to her mother Smt. Rukmani (PW 3), and her father Dhani Ram (PW 4) when he came back to the house in the evening. They went to the Pardhan and thereafter on the next morning lodged a report (Ext. PH) at Police Post, Majra. It was recorded by M, C. Ranjit Singh (PW 13) and transmitted through constable Deep Kumar {PW 9) to Police Station, Paonta Sahib, on which First Information Report (Ext. PE) was registered by Karam Singh (PW 6). The investigation was commenced by A. S. I Inder Singh (PW 16). Site plan (Ext, PJ) was prepared and the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination like the accused. 4. After collecting necessary evidence in the form of medical opinion, ocular account and other supporting evidence, the accused was prosecuted before trial Court for two offences namely 376/506 of Indian Penal Code. The accused has denied the prosecution case and pleads false implication. It also appears from the trend of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that he has set up the defence of mistaken identity. The case finally ended in the aforesaid conviction of the accused. Hence this appeal before this Court. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the parties made extensive use of the evidence available on record of this case in order to assail and support the impugned judgment. I proceed to deal with these submissions one by one. 6. Shri J. K. Verma submitted that the First Information Report in this case is grossly delayed and is not a true version of the incident. It is, according to learned Counsel, result of due deliberation and intentional involvement of the accused The Police Station is at a short distance of three kilometers from the place of occurrence still there is delay of about 24 hours in lodging the report. Shri R. M. Bisht explained that there is no such delay and whatever delay has occurred the same has been duly explained. I have examined this contention of the learned Counsel for the accused and see no substance in it, After the happening of the incident, the prosecutrix comes home and narrates the incident to her mother. Father was not there and when he came at about 8 p. m., it was again narrated to him. I have examined this contention of the learned Counsel for the accused and see no substance in it, After the happening of the incident, the prosecutrix comes home and narrates the incident to her mother. Father was not there and when he came at about 8 p. m., it was again narrated to him. Obviously, the family would have thought over the matter since it was a serious question about a daughter subjected to rape. They naturally, went to the village Pardhan and thereafter that the matter was intended to be reported to the police. By then, night had fallen and in the morning of 9-5-1985 the matter was reported at 1.45 p m. In these circumstances it can be said that there is no delay in lodging the First Information Report and the distance of time between the occurrence and lodging of the report has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution in this case. 7. Next it was contended that it is a case of mistaken identity since there are other persons with the same name. Reliance on Gopal Singh and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1972 SC 1557, was placed. The learned Counsel for the accused also urged that the prosecution having failed to conduct identification parade, the problem of mistaken identity of the accused has increased to a greater extent and in such a situation, the accused is deserves to be acquitted. Perusal of the statement given by the prosecutrix discloses quite clearly that she knew the accused from before. Further, she has not been shaken on this aspect during the course of her cross-examination by the accused. When there is no mistake as to the identity of the accused, the holding of identification parade is un-necessary, The fact that she did not know the name of the father of the accused which finds mention in the report to the police is not of much significance since it may have been added in order to cast away any doubt as to the involvement of this accused to the exclusion of the other with the same name. 8. Further contention of Shri J. K. Verma relates to the extra-judicial confession recorded by the doctor while the accused was examined by him. 8. Further contention of Shri J. K. Verma relates to the extra-judicial confession recorded by the doctor while the accused was examined by him. This contention is not worth consideration since no reliance has been placed by the trial Court on it nor Shri R M. Bisht made use of it to sustain his submissions during the course of hearing of this appeal. 9. Shri J K. Verma then submitted that there was not penetration nor spermatozoa were found on the person and clothes of the prosecutrix or the accused. Explaining the injuries on the penis of the accused, it was submitted that they were on account of masturbation resorted by the accused. These submissions are again of no substance. Simply because spermatozoa were not found, act of rape is not ruled out (See (1989) 1 Crimes 384 (SC), Prithi Chand v. rate of Himachal Pradesh). The prosecutrix has stated that as a result of the act of accused, blood came out from her private parts. This version of her is true since her Salwar was found stained with blood. The story of masturbation by the accused is unbelievable and it is further ruled out by the doctor who has specifically stated that it could be caused while committing rape and not on account of masturbation. 10. Now only two aspects of the prosecution case remain to be examined. The first is about the age of the prosecutrix and the second about the allegation of rape by the prosecutrix The prosecutrix has stated her age to be of eleven years ; same is the version of her mother and father. The radiological test fixes her age above nine and below 14.4 years. Taking into account the possible variations, it can be said that the prosecutrix was decidedly 16 years of age may be less as can be inferred from the medical reports but cannot be more than this. 11. The prosecutrix has given a state-forward and comprehensive account of the incident. The accused has been clearly and satisfactorily fixed to be responsible for the commission of crime on her. Her statement is dependable and acceptable. However, it is corroborated by her mother to whom the occurrence was narrated soon after the incident and further by the father. There is no reason to say that the accused has been falsely implicated. The accused has been clearly and satisfactorily fixed to be responsible for the commission of crime on her. Her statement is dependable and acceptable. However, it is corroborated by her mother to whom the occurrence was narrated soon after the incident and further by the father. There is no reason to say that the accused has been falsely implicated. There is no cogent basis to raise this kind of plea by the accused. The prosecutrix or her parents or the village Pardhan had no reason to involve the accused in this case The prosecution case therefore, is established by the prosecutrix, her parents, the medical evidence in this case. 12. No other submission was raised by any of the Counsel for the parties The result, therefore, is that there is no force in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.