JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—The appellant, a teacher, was prosecuted for committing rape on PW 4 Laxmi Devi, a girl of tender age of 10 or 11 years, studying in 4th class in a school at village Piplighat, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmour, on the afternoon of 25-9-1989. The learned Sessions Judge Sirmour convicted him under section 376 (2) (f), I. P. C. on 11-7-1990 in Session Trial No 7-N/7 of 1990 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The appellant is further ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the victim Laxmi Devi, in default of payment of the amount of compensation within three months, the same was to be recovered from him as fine and be given to victim Laxmi Devi. 2. The appellant has approached this Court against the said judgment. 3. The facts in brief are that Laxmi Devi PW 4 was a student of 4th class in Primary School Ugar Kandaghat (Piplighat) and the appellant was a teacher in the said school. On 25-9-1989 when the teaching hours were over, the appellant asked PW 4 Laxmi Devi to sweep the floor. One Janam Singh was also there, who was asked by the appellant to go to his house to collect water there and Janam Singh left the school. While the victim was sweeping the floor, the appellant stated to have asked the victim to let him do sexual intercourse with her. The victim declined to do so The appellant lifted her and put her on a box and took off her salwar. Thereafter he took off his trousers and his underwear and then committed sexual intercourse with her against her consent After he finished the act of sexual intercourse, he threatened the victim not to disclose it to any one otherwise he would beat her. She felt pain and blood started oozing out from her vagina She was weeping at that time. There was one shop of one Rikhi Ram nearby, but the same was closed and there was no vicinity nearby the school. She came to her house but did not tell about the incident to her mother as she was afraid that she would be given beatings by her parents. There was one shop of one Rikhi Ram nearby, but the same was closed and there was no vicinity nearby the school. She came to her house but did not tell about the incident to her mother as she was afraid that she would be given beatings by her parents. As her father was not present in the house, her mother could not decide on the course of action. On the return of Jhangru PW 6 on 27-9-1989, Surto PW 5, wife of P W 6, narrated the incident to him during night time, where upon on the next morning PW 6 carried PW 4 Laxmi Devi to the civil hospital at Dadahu on his back. The doctor at the hospital advised them to report the matter to the police. On 28-9-1989 the prosecutrix and her father went to police station Renukaji where the father of the prosecutrix lodged the report which is on record at Ex. PE. 4. On the completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Nahan for trial. The trial Court found the appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him as aforesaid. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and minutely examined the oral and documentary evidence. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. 6. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant. 7. The prosecutrix PW 4 was examined by PW 1 Dr. Archana Gupta who has issued M. L. C. Ex. PA. The medical certificate shows that public and axillary hair not grown. Breast not developed, Labia is swollen and congested. Posterior fourchette inflammed Hymen lacerated The edges of tears of humen red, swollen and painful and bleeds on touch. Vagina admits one finger painfully. The duration of injuries on genital organs is within four to five cays. This witness proved the skia grams Ex PI to P-11 According to the opinion of this witness, Laxmi Devi was not found habitual of committing sexual intercourse. This witness also proved Ex. PA/1 the report of the Radiologist recorded by this witness in her own hand. The duration of injuries on genital organs is within four to five cays. This witness proved the skia grams Ex PI to P-11 According to the opinion of this witness, Laxmi Devi was not found habitual of committing sexual intercourse. This witness also proved Ex. PA/1 the report of the Radiologist recorded by this witness in her own hand. She has opined that the injuries observed by her could be present in case of attempted penetration as well as complete penetration of the vagina of the girl. 8. PW Dr. T. D. Tandon, Dental Surgeon, also examined the prosecutrix on 1-10-1989 for the purpose of age verification This witness has issued M L C. Ex, PB and on the basis of clinical and X-rays, finding, the age of the prosecutrix was found between 8 to 11 years. He proved Ex. P-12 to P-19 the X-ray skia grams of the prosecutrix taken by him. 9. PW 3 Dr, A. K. Gupta examined the appellant on 10-10-1989. He found him to be well built male adult. Secondary sexual characters were found well-developed. In the opinion of this witness, the appellant was fit to indulge in sexual intercourse He has issued the M. L. C Ex. PC. 10. PW 17, Dr. H. K. Pant examined the prosecutrix with a view to ascertaining her age. After her radiological examination and her skia grams Ex P-l to P-11, he gave his opinion Ex. PW 17/A. He opined that the approximate age of the victim was between 9 to 10 years on the date of the incident. 11. PW 4, Laxmi Devi has given her age at about 9 years at the time when her evidence was recorded. She deposed that on the day of the incident after the school hours the appellant asked Janam Singh to go to his house and collect water there Janam Singh on the asking of the appellant had left the school. The appellant asked her to sweep the floor. While she was doing the sweeping work, the appellant asked her to permit him to commit sexual intercourse with her. She was lifted by the appellant and put on a box, her Salwar was taken off by the appellant and he took off his underwear and trousers and committeed sexual intercourse with her without her consent. While she was doing the sweeping work, the appellant asked her to permit him to commit sexual intercourse with her. She was lifted by the appellant and put on a box, her Salwar was taken off by the appellant and he took off his underwear and trousers and committeed sexual intercourse with her without her consent. She was weeping at that time but there was no vicinity nearby and nobody could hear her cries. The appellant threatened her in case the incident was disclosed to anybody by her. She reached at her house but did not tell her mother as she was afraid that she would be beaten by her parents. Her father was not present in the house. Next morning she woke up and her mother found her clothes blood stained and asked her about the origin of the blood. She narrated the entire incident to her mother. He father arrived on the 3rd day of the occurrence from the house of his sister. After the arrival of her father, her mother told the incident to him during the night time. 12. PW 5, Surto, is the mother of the prosecutrix. She deposed that the age of the prosecutrix was 8-9 years at the time when her evidence was recorded. She states that the prosecutrix was a student of 4th class studying in Primary School Piplighat at the time of the incident. She found Salwar Ex. P-20 of the prosecutrix stained with blood and also her bed was found blood-stained. On her enquiry from the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her She has supported the version of the prosecutrix. She states that her husband was not in the village as he was working on a road as a labour and was staying with his sister in village Ungar. She deposed that her husband came after two days from the date when the prosecutrix had narrated the incident to her. She narrated the entire incident to her husband On the next day her husband took the prosecutrix to hospital at Dadahu by carrying her. She has identified Dari (Carpet) Ex. P-21 and Bichhona (mattress) Ex, P-22 which were blood-stained and the prosecutrix was sleeping on the said bed. 13. PW 6, Jhangru Ram is the father of the prosecutrix. She narrated the entire incident to her husband On the next day her husband took the prosecutrix to hospital at Dadahu by carrying her. She has identified Dari (Carpet) Ex. P-21 and Bichhona (mattress) Ex, P-22 which were blood-stained and the prosecutrix was sleeping on the said bed. 13. PW 6, Jhangru Ram is the father of the prosecutrix. He has given the age of the prosecutrix about 9 years at the time of the incident He deposed that he was away from his house working on a road as a labour and used to stay with his sister in village Ungar. He came back to his house on a day prior to the lodging of the F. L R., and his wife PW 5 narrated the entire incident to him during night time. On the morning he carried the prosecutrix to Dadahu hospital on his back and also took Salwar Ex. P-20 with him* He was advised by the doctor to go to the police station. Thereafter the report Ex. PE was lodged by him at police station Renukaji. Salwar Ex. P-20 was handed over to the police. 14. PW 7 Rikhi Ram deposed that he has been running a shop near the school at Piplighat. There is no residential house near by his shop. On 25-9-1989 his shop was closed, On 29-9-1989 the police had taken into possession in his presence the pieces of floor scrappings Ex. P-23 having blood-stains. 15. PW 9 Jeet Ram deposed that the prosecutrix and the appellant are known to him. On 25-9-1989 he was grazing his bullocks at a distance of about 200 meters from the school Piplighat, He saw the prosecutrix coming from the school weeping. After some time he also saw the appellant coming from the school side. Dari Ex, P-21 and Bachhona Ex. P-22 were taken into possession by the police in his presence. 16. PW 8 Mangat Ram was posted as Headmaster in the school at the relevant time. He has proved the copy of the attendance register Ex. PJ of the teachers of the school maintained by him and Ex PK copy of the register of the attendance of students. He has also proved the certificate of date of birth of the prosecutrix Ex. PL and Ex PM a copy of admission form of the prosecutrix. He has proved the copy of the attendance register Ex. PJ of the teachers of the school maintained by him and Ex PK copy of the register of the attendance of students. He has also proved the certificate of date of birth of the prosecutrix Ex. PL and Ex PM a copy of admission form of the prosecutrix. According to these documents, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 15-5-1979. 17. PW 10, Manga Ram is the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Maina Gharel. He has proved the copy of register of births and deaths pertaining to Laxmi Devi, which is Ex. PN and Ex. PO is the copy of the extract from the Pariwar Register. According to these documents Ex. PN and PO> the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 15-5-1979. 18. The evidence of PW 17 Dr. H. K Pant corroborates the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also finds support with the documents Exs. PL, PM PN and PO to show that the prosecutrix was around 10 or 11 years of age on the date of the incident. 19. The pieces of floor scrappings Ex. P-23, Salwar Ex. P-20, Dari Ex. P-21 and Bichhona Ex. P-22 were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser and Serologist for examination and report The report Ex PR shows that stains were found on Ex. P-20, Salwar P-21 Dari and P-22 Bichhona. However, spermatozoa was found on Salwar Ex. P-20 and Dari Ex P-21. The report of the Serologist Ex. PS shows that the blood-stains on the pieces of cement could not be determined on account of disintegration This evidence would also go to support the say of the prosecution that there was profuse bleeding from the vagina. 20. PW S1A.S I. Ugar Singh took into possession shirt Ex. P-24, trousers Ex. P-25 and underwear Ex. P-26 of the appellant from the possession of the appellant PW 12 Om Prakash, PW 13 Mam Raj, PW 14 Lai Singh and PW 15 Raj Kumar are the formal police officers. 21. PW 16 Sub-Inspector Khub Ram is the Investigating Officer who has proved the F. I. R Ex. PE and conducted the investigation and prepared the various documents of the case. 22. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was delay in lodging the F. I. R. We do not think so. 21. PW 16 Sub-Inspector Khub Ram is the Investigating Officer who has proved the F. I. R Ex. PE and conducted the investigation and prepared the various documents of the case. 22. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was delay in lodging the F. I. R. We do not think so. Immediately after the incident was narrated to the mother, the decision was taken to await the return of the father before deciding upon the course of action. On the arrival of the father the prosecutrix was taken to a doctor at Dadahu civil hospital, who advised that the police should be informed about the incident The girl was taken to Renukaji police station on ^8-9-1989 and the F. I. R. Ex PE was lodged The complainant has given reasonable explanation for lodging the F. I. R. after three days of the occurrence. It is not uncommon that such considerations delayed action on the part of the near relations of a young girl who is raped. The prosecutrix has narrated her story before the learned Sessions Judge as well. We, therefore, do not think that there was any delay in reporting the matter to the police. 23. It was next contended that the appellant was falsely involved in the case. The defence of the appellant is that Kamla Devi sister of PW Laxmi Devi was married in his village and she used to meet him. Her in-laws suspected her and the case has been registered against him at the instance of in-laws of Kamla Devi. The suggestion of the appellant was not admitted by the prosecution witnesses. It is not possible to believe that the prosecutrix and her parents would allow the real culprit to escape and falsely involve an innocent person for the commission of the crime. -Except for the suggestion made in the cross-examination of PW 4 prosecutrix, PW 5 Surto, mother of the prosecutrix, PW 6 Jhangru Ram, father of the prosecutrix and the statement under section 313, Cr. P. C, there is no other material on record which can give credence to the suggestion. 24. Lastly it was argued that since the girl was of tender age, the possibility of her wrongly involving the appellant cannot be ruled out. 25. P. C, there is no other material on record which can give credence to the suggestion. 24. Lastly it was argued that since the girl was of tender age, the possibility of her wrongly involving the appellant cannot be ruled out. 25. After analysing the evidence it will be thus seen that the ocular count of the incident as given by Laxmi Devi PW stands fully corroborated in all material particulars connecting the appellant with the crime in question, Laxmi Devi, though a child witness, faced the cross-examination unfalteringly and in a straight-forward manner and even the learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity in her evidence which could go to show that she is a tutored witness, as such, untrustworthy and undependable. We may refer here the observations made by the Supreme Court in Bharwada Choginbhai Hirjibhai v State of Gujarat, 1983 Cr LJ 1096. The apex Court in this case has enumerated the principles as under : “On principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted) is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. And while corroboration in the form of eye-witness account of a independent witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence cannot be expected in sex offences, having regard to the very nature of the offence. It would therefore be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration drawing inspiration from the rules devised by the Courts in the Western World. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the probabilities-factor does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming subject to the following qualification ; Corroboration may be insisted upon when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is a likelihood of her having levelled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self-preservation. Or when the probabilities-factor is found to be out of tune." It is further held that : "A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including by her owe family members, relatives, friends, and neighbours. She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an aliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. In view of these and similar factors the victims and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to books. And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated." 26. We have already examined the argument of the learned Counsel and find no substance in the same. 27. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not feel the least hesitation to hold that the charge has been brought home to the appellant beyond the slightest shadow of doubt. He was, therefore, rightly convicted of the charge and there is absolutely no reason for interference with the impugned judgment. 28. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.